User talk:Lozleader/Archive 1

List of Town Councils in the Republic of Ireland

I notice that you altered my edit. I suggest that if you want this to remain a list of towns which had urban countil status, you change the heading from "List of Town Councils in the Republic of Ireland" to "List of Towns with Town Councils in Ireland". As it stands, this is not a list of town councils. --Damac 20:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Local Government Act 1888

Hi. Excellent work on Local Government Act 1888 - I've been doing similar things lately (see List of rural and urban districts in England...)

I wonder if you have access to a copy of it? Morwen - Talk 23:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Cool. I have a few questions about it then - does it redefine the Lieutenancies itself or was that done later? Does it define the administrative counties in detail (lists of parishes and suchforth), or does it refer to the traditional divisions like the Ridings and Parts and suchforth directly?

What I really want now is a copy of the LGA(Scotland)Act1889, because from things written in sources I've consulted, along with stuff on visionofbritain.org.uk, I suspect it doesn't explicitly create seperate "administrative counties" like the England/Wales one did. It looks like they set up county councils based on the existing borders, and then set up a boundary commission to change these in the next couple of years. Morwen - Talk 14:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks very much! If it really says 'form a seperate county for all non-administrative purposes by the name of the county of London.' then that's the lieutenancies bit right there. We've been told that there is wording in the Act that explicitly doesn't alter the "ancient and geographic counties" - did you find such a section?

I guess 'metropolis' was defined in the Metropolitan Board of Works legislation.

By the way, you can sign your name by typing ~~~~

Morwen - Talk 16:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Yay. And thanks again. Morwen - Talk 16:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

You totally rule. Please tell me where I can send your christmas card.  ;) Morwen - Talk 01:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I've updated a couple of pages in accordance with this. Will think about it a bit more. Morwen - Talk 20:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Traditional counties

Hi Lozleader, Just in case you werent aware, we've had enormous rows in the past about "traditional counties" and their usage on wikipedia. We even had one person who insisted that we have seperate articles for traditional and administrative counties. So your clarification is very usefull. Try reading Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (places) and Talk:Gloucestershire for examples of this dispute. G-Man 20:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Re your comments on my talk page. Yep I quite agree that old counties are imporant from a historic point of view. The real bone of contention is that certain people such as 80.255 and User:Owain insist upon refering to them in the present tense (see Glamorgan for example). Which I and many others think is quite absurd and utterly misleading to readers, but there you go. Keep up the good work. G-Man 20:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Local Government (Scotland) Act 1889

So, what is the wording regarding Ross and Cromarty? From what you've written it seems it made them one "county" as well as one "administrative county" a la Middlesex, is that right?

Morwen - Talk 22:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Whee. What about Orkney and Shetland? Shetland wasn't a county before? Morwen - Talk 22:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. And finally, does it actually use the term "administrative county", then? Morwen - Talk 22:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Aha. I thought so (see top). this is what gave the game away. Morwen - Talk 22:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I daresay the reason was merely that there were no county boroughs in Scotland (the cities already being considered outwith the counties). Anyway, good night, and thanks very much for the research! Morwen - Talk 22:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Further suggestions

If you are in need of further suggestions of things to research, how about the following?

• table of boroughs made post-1835
• lists of burghs and their various types

Morwen - Talk 11:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Scottish islands

Thanks for digging that out. Kind regards. Mrsteviec 20:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply

It was actually Morwen who did the merger at User:Morwen/counties of Scotland, I just copied and pasted it and made a few tweaks. I re-added the bit about joint county councils.

Changing the subject, according to 80.255 there were several General Register Office's Census Reports in 1891 1901 and 1911 which according to him give seperate sets of statistics for "administrative counties" and "ancient and geographic counties". Which he claims made it clear that "ancient and geographic counties" were seperate entities and were not abolised in 1889. Now personally I'm sceptical (why did they not do this after 1911?) but it would be interesting to see what the reports actually said, and maybe this would shed light on the subject. I havn't got a clue how to find such things, but you might know.

If you can find no reference to historic counties being specifically preserved in the 1888 act then perhaps these reports are the source of the belief that it did. G-Man 23:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting, I can see reference to "Ancient Counties" but nothing about "Ancient and Geographic Counties", which supports your view. Also If they still existed after 1889 then why did they stop compiling figures for them after 1911, that seems rather odd, that also supports your view. It would be nice if there was an explanation somewhere about why they did this. Anyway the more we look into the arguments put foreward by the traditional counties types, the weaker they look. G-Man * 23:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

County boroughs

I had the Act that increased the limit to 75,000 down as being the "Local Government (County Boroughs and Adjustments Act) 1926", not the 1929 act itself. Morwen - Talk 12:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Neat. It occurs to me that much of this stuff should be public domain (everything Crown Copyright published before 1955 is), and therefore you might possibly be able to scan it (although if they are tied to the reference collection of a library or somesuch this might be tricky). Morwen - Talk 17:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Rural/urban districts in Ireland

It would be nice, but low priority. I assume they were never reformed in the 26 counties? Just abolished as created? Morwen - Talk 09:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Aha. I have discovered [1]. Morwen - Talk 10:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

CofE dioceses

Thanks. So it looks like 1836/7 was a crucial year. Although only one new diocese (Ripon) was created, another two (Bristol & Gloucester) were joined; and several others had their borders redrawn to be simpler. Then nothing more happened for another decade or so. Cheers, Doops | talk 00:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Tullow

Hi. Just noticed that [2] has Tullow being a dissolved town commissioners area being abolished, which isn't mentioned at the list of Town Commissioners, even in the created bits. Any ideas? Morwen - Talk 15:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Hah. That's quite funny. Morwen - Talk 21:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Rural districts with one parish

I've spotted a few of these so far - e.g. Tintwistle Rural District, which in its latter form consisted of the parish of Tintwistle. I wonder what happened with the administration of these? Morwen - Talk 23:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

That one looks like it was the part of Peterborough RSD that was in Holland, which at least makes sense. Morwen - Talk 12:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

And I guess there were very little practical difference between a single-parish RDC and an actual small UDC. Morwen - Talk 18:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

All interesting stuff ;), although possibly only to me. I presume atm you are preparing a Big List of RDs or somesuch? Morwen - Talk 17:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing it (if it fits in my webbrowser). As you can see from my contribs I've been stubbing various of those sorts of RDs - was surprised to find some a quite big one Thrapston Rural District that was split between counties. Morwen - Talk 17:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that was actually real was it? I'd assumed that was an artefact of visionofbritain's database. Morwen - Talk 18:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea how I managed to type that. Doh. Morwen - Talk 08:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Image upload

Hi. Just to let you know you can upload new versions of images over the old one which eliminates the need to have two versions/delete old one. Kind regards, Mrsteviec 21:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Yes that is a limitation. All the best. Mrsteviec 21:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Wishlist

Hey. I just thought I'd led you know that I've put a wishlist of unanswered questions regarding counties at User:Morwen/wishlist. I guess that at least some of that is on your TODO list already, but just thought I'd put some ideas down if you are getting bored of counting districts. ;) Morwen - Talk 00:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Eek. God knows what Lists_of_Lord_Lieutenancies#Ireland is of, then. Maybe the DLs have been wrongly labelled LLs here? Morwen - Talk 09:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess that being wrongly called LLs in popular usage is possible - I did think it was odd for Ireland to have a big Lord Lieutenant and also lots of little ones. Morwen - Talk 16:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, lieutenants were predecessors of the lord lieutenants in English counties, responsible only for military activities. Perhaps these Irish figures were their counterparts? Warofdreams talk 16:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hard to say. This is from Lewis's Topographical Dictionary of 1837, and does not mention "lord":

"The local government [of County Kerry] is vested in a lieutenant, 17 deputy-lieutenants, and 122 magistrates, including the Provost of Tralee and the Sovereign of Dingle, who are magistrates of the county for the time being; besides whom there are the usual county officers, including three coroners."

The other Irish counties have similar entries. Lozleader 17:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

and here are two references to Lieutentcies of counties - without the use of "lord"

[3] [4]
Apparently the lieutenants for the various counties were listed in Directories, so i shall see if i can unearth one of those for a clearer picture... Lozleader 17:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

London parishes suggestion

Coincidentally with our discussion, someone, well-meaningly, I'm sure, added a list of parishes to the Shoreditch entry reflecting the old pre-1899 Shoreditch. Now that is good info, but it should not be in the intro to a district piece, which should be a quick summary of the situation on the ground right now. Particularly bad for Shoreditch, because defining it in 2006 is like trying to nail jelly to the wall - that parish list will not map on, and obsolete sub-divisions are of less contemporary interest than, say, a list of art galleries (which is actually sorely needed). (I do agree, however, that all districts should have a History section, of course, when they have any history, that is.)

Anyway, I have moved the list to the Metropolitan Borough of Shoreditch page, though it is only six out of 21 parishes (I ought to make it more clear that these are just the parishes for what was regarded as Shoreditch, not Hoxton and Haggerston). It seems to me that this is actually a really good logical use of the Met Borough pages, which have been underused, and if they are added and wiki-linked back to the parish pages it fills my request for listing the parishes/vestries/unions as you guys create entries for them.

What do you reckon? Tarquin Binary 18:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, you done made me go and look. Parishes 1819. I've been dodging pre-LCC stuff, but it turns out rather simpler than I thought. Yes - Shoreditch is indeed one (admin) parish by the look of it with the exception of the two obsolete 'liberties'. I also see why Morwen revived St Luke's, but sadly I still maintain it is a lost place name in 2006. Be nice to refactor that map, actually - very helpful when disentangling Tower Hamlets history. Later. Tarquin Binary 19:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Re:St Luke's. Found this pic in the archives

which examplifies the problem of naming. That is the spire of the church faintly visible. The foreground is postwar estate housing to the north of the church and is actually in Hoxton, Hackney. This whole area to the north, which I suppose would be most of the residential area of the parish at the time (need map to be sure) was nuked out in the war. And together with postwar redevelopment, there is barely a prewar building left west of Hoxton Street. Which, I'd say, may help to account for the loss of the name. Plus St Luke's has not been a functioning church for some time - rebuilt now as an arts centre, will get better pix soonest. Tarquin Binary 13:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm talking rubbish in the last message, of course. Got my pix muddled, then compounded it by suggesting Hoxton was north of St Luke's (probably because I think of that bit as being a sort of an extension of Hoxton). The church in the pic is actually Holy Trinity, Hoxton quite a way to the east. But the area north of St Luke's is basically similar, so point sort of stands. I've been trawling for 2006 addresses that use St Luke's, and there aren't many - with the surprising exception of estate agents who appear to be keen on reviving the area. So I've kind of come round to the idea that St Luke's might therefore usefully fill a gap, (but not where it is marked in the A-Z), in terms of the area between Hoxton and Clerkenwell north of Old Street. Been down there today to get pix, and St Mark's is indeed there, but now architectural scrap merchants, must have walked past it 1000 times. Think I have a couple of the other churches too. Tarquin Binary 18:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Boundary marker pic

Thought you might like this, since you're filling out these parish entries. I haven't really been scoping for these and I get the feeling that many have been lost in east London what with the Blitz and redevelopment. But I will look out in future.

Incidentally, couldn't see any trace of the stone. I love the precision, right down to the inch. Tarquin Binary 19:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Just redlinked Stoke Newington (parish) while I was revamping that piece (just hoping you might bump it up your list). Tarquin Binary 12:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Won't take off me coat 'cos I'm not stopping, way too late. But just to say, thanks, brilliant. Might have to disamb 'Hornsey' because modern Hornsey is not contiguous with Stokie. The historic use is understandable of course, given that Harringay, Hornsey and the neologism Haringey are cognates, but that is part of the fun. I do think we now have to have Hackney (parish) and West Hackney (parish) of course :) No worries - that's plenty to be going on with. Tarquin Binary 01:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Exclaves

I'm not sure all of them are the right way round? e.g. ABC have "Thorncombe, Dorset, pre-1844 in det pt of Devn", whilst we have it being transferred to Devon from Dorset?. Morwen - Talk 23:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

There's something funny going on with the Cornish ones too... Morwen - Talk 23:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Curiously ABC didn't have those listed. They had no right being in Devon anyway I suppose, being west of the Tamar. Morwen - Talk 00:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Finsbury

Arse. That means Metropolitan Borough of Finsbury needs changing too. Morwen - Talk 12:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Map here. Morwen - Talk 12:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. The article says it isn't in much use as a placename now - I wonder if it ever was, since it's never been the name of a village or estate. Morwen - Talk 12:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Rural districts

Bloody good work!

Couple of questions:

• was there any practical difference between a cross-county RD and one that administered other parishes? did the electorate in those parishes actually get the vote?
• List of County Exclaves in England and Wales 1844 - 1974 thinks that the Seals were given to Derbyshire in 1897, but the existence of a Hartshorn and Seals RD in 1894 seems to contradict that? Morwen - Talk 12:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Weird. By the way, there seems to be a missing entry for Brailes Rural District but I'm not sure where or what exactly is going on there. Morwen - Talk 13:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

And there was a Saddleworth RD - is that right? Morwen - Talk 23:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I should have left it to you. Yours is much better. I may do some tidying/merging if there is any to be done. Morwen - Talk 21:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Also - do you think it would be good heraldic practice to eliminate use of arms from places not actually referring to the corporate body - I am thinking in particular the geography stub types? Morwen - Talk 21:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense. Red-and-white cinquefoil for Leicester, etc. I'll do the flaggable ones now. Morwen - Talk 21:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Geo-stubs

Hi... as it says at the top of the list of stub templates - all the icons used on stub templates have been put there after a lot of thought and effort, and should not be changed except after discussion and for very good reasons (part of the reason for that is that changing templates that are used on hundreds of articles causes problems for the servers). I've reverted a few - please don't change them back without good reason! Mind you, you were right about the size of the arms on several of them, so I've increased the size of the icons slightly. Grutness...wha? 00:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I see the Berkshire county council arms on Template:Berkshire-geo-stub have been squashed back to 35px, rendering the image illegible again! Lozleader 11:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Rochester

Wondering what happened with Rochester's city status in 1974, if the Rochester-upon-Medway district was originally called Medway - it is now held to have been extinguished due to the lack of charter trustees, were any appointed in 1974? Also the Rutland resolution confuses me - surely in that case it was the councils name that was being changed? If taken literally then we today have a Rutland County Council District Council which would just be confusing. ;) Morwen - Talk 23:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Having said that, "Rutland County Council District Council" gives 124 hits at rutland.gov.uk, so eek! Fools. Morwen - Talk 23:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Gah, now you've made me want to track down all the dates for modern borough statuses, and whether they were section 245(4) or not. That mentioned, I wonder how Welwyn Hatfield's is doing. Morwen - Talk 23:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I visited Oakham at the weekend and the address at the bottom of the museum car park notice board says "Rutland County Council District Council", whereas notices without a full address just say "Rutland County Council". What a bizarre resultion! Surely "County of Rutland District Council" would have roled off the tongue better? They managed to name the new East Riding of Yorkshire without such problems, didn't they? Yorkshire Phoenix 14:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose its no worse than the East Yorkshire Borough of Beverley Borough Council (otherwise known as the Borough Council of the East Yorkshire Borough of Beverley or Swadlincote District Urban District Lozleader 14:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

District Health Authorities

Ok. Are you planning anything to do with PCTs? Morwen - Talk 16:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

1844

Yeah. By the way, the repeal has to be read in context with the Interpretation Act 1850 in mind, which means that simple repeals don't necessarily restore the situation that existed before them.

In terms of the 'traditional counties' it doesn't really make any difference depending on whether you believe they legally exist or not. The Interpretation Act 2002 says that where an Act repeals an enactment, the repeal does not, unless the contrary intention appears, revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect..., so it still hinges on the question of whether the counties not explicitly abolished in 1888 still legally exist. If they do, then they must now be as they were pre-1844. If they don't, then the repeal is irrelevant anyway. More interesting I think is the fact that the Association of British Counties doesn't seem to take this into account at all, and doesn't mention the repeal on its website, even though the above interpretation is a logical continuation of its own argument. Stringops 15:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I would really doubt that the people drafting the LGA 1972 would consider that they were sending big chunks of Northumberland back to County Durham etc. And then you would have the problem of the bits of Herefordshire inside the Welsh border. I'd rather not comment on the logic or otherwise of the ABC position. Lozleader 16:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this is unlikely, but according to the Interpretation Act it's the intention of the people drafting the 1888 Local government act that matters. A much bigger problem for the ABC is the repeal of the Laws in Wales Act, which actually defines the Welsh border and the western borders of Herefordshire, Gloucestershire and Worcestershire. I suppose you could make a constitutional argument against the Interpretation acts themselves for the fact that they are in effect ex post facto legislation and therefore disallowed under the European Convention on Human Rights, but we're getting into pretty speculative territory. The basic point of the Interpretation Act is that it doesn't undo abolition unless there's a specific intention to do so, so it in this case it comes back to square one as to whether or not there was any abolition. Reading the discussions on the various county pages, I get the impresion that this is the main contested thing. I'm still trying to think of a way to change these articles so they don't look like they've obviously been written by two opposing sides in a let's see how many times we can contradict each other contest!! Stringops 16:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Short of inventing a time machine and interviewing the legislators of 1888 it may have to stay in dispute. They either thought they were altering the "ancient counties" or they ignored them. The old counties were replaced for all *practical* purposes (except parliamentary cos they'd only just rejigged the constituencies). Does that mean they still exist for impractical purposes?Lozleader 16:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

As they were creating an entirely new system, it's possible that they both had the intention of abandoning the ancient counties for all practical purposes, and also intentionally not abolishing them in case of legal complications. For example, I think the draft paper for the 1972 LGA originally wanted to abolish the duchy of Lancaster, but was later changed before its final form because so much preceding legislations specifically made allowances for the slightly different constitutional situation in the duchy and it would have been impractical to amend every applicable law due to the scale of the undertaking. That's one idea, anyway. The situation with Cornwall is also interesting, but less clear cut. By the way, the 1844 Act doesn't seem to have had a completely straightforward effect if the following extract from the 1911 britannica is anything to go by:

"At the time of the Domesday Survey the boundaries were approximately those of the present day, but part of Meppershall in Bedfordshire formed a detached portion of the shire and is still assessed for land and income tax in Hertfordshire." [5]

It seems that for some purposes, exclaves affected by the act were still being used some 60 years afterwards as part of their original counties. Stringops 17:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It also repeals the following bits of the LGA 1888 - section 3(x), section 5, section 7, section 11(11), and (12), in section 28(2) the last instance of the words "in respect of", and " of the Explosives Act 1875", sections 31 to 39, sections 46 and 48 , and the definition of a main road in section 100. Morwen - Talk 14:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just to draw your attention to my reply on my talk page. Thanks, Stringops 15:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Shoreditch arms.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Shoreditch arms.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Shoreditch_arms.png

Oh dear! As far as I can see from above this bot is now outlawing the coat of arms tag, but is only picking on newly updated images. What about the hundreds of existing images with the coat of arms tag? Is the coat of arms tag a dud? What would you suggest in its place? I've tried tinkering around with the fair use tag but can't find a way of inserting required source info etcetera. Confused and not happy. Lozleader 15:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

{{Coat of arms}} hasn't been an acceptable copyright tag since last November. Nobody's bothered to enforce it before I started having OrphanBot tag image uploads, which is why it seems that the bot is outlawing the tag. As for existing images, there are about 4000 images tagged as "coat of arms", and I get about one complaint for every ten images, so I'm in no particular hurry.

For coats of arms in the European tradition, there's a text description (technically, a blazon) around somewhere. It's encyclopedic information, particularly if there's a description of why those particular arms were chosen, and should be placed in the article. You can then find a Wikipedian who can draw up the arms from the description, or you can do it yourself. There's a program called "Blazon95" that can handle simple coats of arms; for more complex arms, a vector-graphics program such as Inkscape is a good choice.

For arms in the American tradition, there's no text description: the picture is the canonical form. It's basically a logo that happens to have a shield as the background, so it should be tagged as {{logo}}. --Carnildo 19:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Water

Looks like the list at South West Water ought to be at Southern Water? Unless my geography is seriously out of date. ;) Morwen - Talk 12:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

National Bus Company

Nice work: I tentatively added North Western Road Car Company referring to the 1986 split of Ribble. Would welcome your thoughts on whether and how this could be linked to the original Stockport-based North Western Road Car which you have referred to. Divy 18:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Bus Companies

Hi. Just wondering why you took a few articles out of Category:Former nationalised industries of the United Kingdom. Have you a new category planned for them or something? Lozleader 19:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I was thinking about that, actually. It is true the former bus companies were state-owned, but through the National Bus Company, which they were merged into. They weren't directly state-owned, either before, or after then (after deregulation). WOuld it be better to have another category of 'Former bus companies of the United Kingdom'?? Mind you, the mods. might think that was too similar to 'Buses in the United Kingdom'... (RM21 19:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC))

Makessense, seeing as they are all listed as subsidiaries in the National Bus Company (UK) and Transport Holding Company articles. Not sure if another category is required Lozleader 20:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Map of REC's

Hi. I've noticed that for some articles, you've been able to produce maps that indicate the service area, say, of an electric or gas board. The REC's page doesn't have a lot of graphic content on it at the moment, and I was wondering if a map would suit. I'd be interested to know what you think.

Did you design the map of the 1947 area boards?? (RM21 01:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC))

Yeah, it's on the list of to-dos....

I drew the maps based on the descriptions given in the Acts, and then checked them against a couple of other sources. It's quite easy with layers: an outline map of Great Britain on the bottom layer, a map of the old counties on the middle layer and a top layer for drawing boundaries, then delete the county map and clean it up a bit, export it as a .png and you're done. Lozleader 11:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Tower Liberties

Great article about the Tower Liberties! Set my mind at rest....I guess one of us could now contribute an article on the Old Artillery Ground.....which intrigues me...having once uncovered the ancient walls of said Ground when I worked as archeologist in Spitalfields....The Tower of London article needs major work as well, if anybody has the time or energy...Colin4C 17:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Just looked at it - full of typos! That's the Liberties of the Tower of London article I mean)Lozleader 19:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

West Riding of Yorkshire

Thanks for your contribution to Talk:West_Riding_of_Yorkshire#Historic_District_Infobox. I've posted a reply. Yorkshire Phoenix 11:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

UK City Status Letters Patents

I see you've added dates of letters patents granting city status to the cities in the city status in the UK article. This is great, are you physically looking through old London Gazettes or have you found an electronic way to do the research? --Statsfan 15:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You can search the archives at [6]. I simply put "status of a city" in the search box, and voila. (BTW you forgot to sign ur post) Lozleader 09:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Superb facility! Thanks for that. --Statsfan 15:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary

It's good practice to give a summary of the changes you make when editing articles. See Help:Edit_summary
Dubidub 18:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:S pembs arms.png

Thanks for uploading Image:S pembs arms.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Random thing

Wondering if you could dig up which districts were unable to come up with a name for themselves and one had to be chosen by the Secretary of State? (which i gather happened) Morwen - Talk 14:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Did it? Do you have an example? This would be under Section 264(4)(d)of the '72 Act? I don't see any provision for the Secretary of State to do that, just to decide the number of appointees from the merging districts on the committee. It would have be done under an S.I. under some bit of legislation or another, and if it was there ought to be a copy somewhere... It's that or go back in time (and that's never a good idea) :-)Lozleader 15:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't, alas, have a reference to hand. I think I got this from one of a bunch of relevant books in Leicester Central Reference Library, which I took notes from but I don't know where they (my notes) are. And even if I did I'm in the wrong city (suddenly moved to London hence my semi-absence)

Sorry, this is dreadfully useless of me ;) I think it was dealing with the case where the naming committee was unable to come up with a mutually satisfactory name. 82.35.9.122 21:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Haven't been able to ferret those out. I did, however, discover the dates for renamings of "shadow" councils pre April 1, 1974, all handily listed in the London Gazette.

I'm old enough to remember the first elections in 1973, and people wondering where on earth places like Three Rivers or Babergh, were...

The London boroughs weren't named in the London Government Act 1963, they just have numbers in the schedule, so I presume a similar process was gone through.

Incidentally [7] Isn't there anymore, which seems a shame. Lozleader 19:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Is at [8] now btw, in case you didn't spot that. In response to borough petitions, may I say a very big ooh

Morwen - Talk 14:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course, that was the time of the Second World War, and a lot of things were suspended during that time. I'm aware of unsuccesful, pre-1929, I think, attempts by Luton and Cambridge, and apparently also most of Middlesex was getting extremely stroppy by the 1950s, but that's a special case. Might be a good project to find out pops of the CBs at their creation, and also find out the pops of the largest non-county boroughs in 1971. Morwen - Talk 15:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Tyne and Wear

Guess who just got a Reader's Pass to the British Library? ;) Morwen - Talk 20:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Congrats. I believe they're hard to find (hard to come by, I mean!). You're goinmg to have fun now, digging through obscure stuff! Lozleader 20:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

List of pre-nationalisation UK electric power companies

Hi. I just noticed that you have done some excellent work on expanding the List of pre-nationalisation UK electric power companies. I started that article knowing that I was unlikely to finish it, so I was hoping that someone would come along and fill in the gaps. Thanks very much! --Heron 11:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Successor parishes

Do you want to have a go at turning the notes at User talk:Morwen/successor parishes into an article or shall I? Morwen - Talk 11:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm in no particular hurry for it - just wondering. I believe it is a complete list. I probably need to proofread. Morwen - Talk 11:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

some anon ip it turns out... Morwen - Talk 12:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Spam

Hey you're nicking my spam reverts!! Thanks a lot & glad you saw it the same way - I have placed a warning on the user talk page. Cheers --Nigel ^(Talk) 18:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I was going to get back to you last night but there was one of those breaks! Only to say I do tend to look on IP addresses (or reg users) whose ONLY contribution are external links with some predjudice(!) and I can be a little ruthless with spam at times. On Montenegro yesterday I took about a third of the links off, just waaay to many for an encyclodedia so I'll be really popular there too. See you around --Nigel ^(Talk) 07:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

London Passenger Transport Area

I don't suppose you have a version of Image:MPD 1933.png with the LPTA shown? It would be good to illustrate. London Passenger Transport Board. Mrsteviec 14:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a great addition to the page. Thanks. Mrsteviec 08:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Charlwood and Horley

Had thought that might be the case.

I'm going to BL today to check out old Hansards: I'm going to try to find the 1888 debates regarding the number of county boroughs, and also I'll try for the 1913 debates regarding Cambridge and Luton. Is there anything else in particular I should be after? At some point I'm going to drag out the Command Paper that became the LGA1972, and do an infodump from it, as well. Morwen - Talk 12:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Penzance seal

Do you have any more info on the Penzance seal that you just added to the page? It looks rather interesting and I wondered if we should include some provenance for it in the text? Mammal4 12:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the seal information, I have just spoken to Penzance Town council about the severed head thing and the Penzance Coat of Arms etc. They think that the head and former common seal was added to the Coat of Arms of Penzance Town Council around 1983 - I will check this by looking at the documents myself (They are in the Penzance Mayors Parlour) - All the best Reedgunner 12:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Tyringham

Yes, that is worth adding. Which volume of Youngs? --Concrete Cowboy 23:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ta - I guessed but without having one, a guess isn't good enough to cite. --Concrete Cowboy 12:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment left on User Page

The following commemtary was left (unsigned) on the my User page by User:Jonomacdrones at 22:46, 4 September 2006:

Appears to be a fan of IP-Following, in the interest of neutrality it would be wrong to make any comment on the neutrality of Lozleader, however there may be serious questions to be raised here.
One would assume, based upon pop psychology, that Lozleader is either a younger, slightly pedantic (in the modern sense of the word) male or a bored older male... however, the previous point of neutrality remains and one would be wrong to make any concrete opinion.

Lozleader 10:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

How weird can you get - I don't reckon on being described as thick (I even answer the odd question on Uni Challenge!) but .... The person's only other contribution is on another user page and is ruder so I guess you got off lightly. Me - ignore, watch user, admin report if anything else happens - I guess you have made friends reverting something placed by an IP. Let me know if I can help - cheers --Nigel ^(Talk) 11:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Bit more - the other one "vandalised" is equally odd. User with no page (other than vandalised bit), no talk & no contributions - both on my watch list - cheers --Nigel ^(Talk) 11:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Odd stuff about - let me know if I can help or watch anything with you - cheers --Nigel ^(Talk) 09:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

lostprophets and Kaiser Chiefs

Was there a good reason for reverting months of edits on these pages? If there was, what was it? U-Mos 15:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I was reversing vandalism by User:195.194.181.5 See his edits at: Special:Contributions/195.194.181.5. I hadn't noticed I'd jumped back to July... It won't happen again...Lozleader 15:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem ;) U-Mos 15:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

1948

I spotted. Its interesting how many of these reports and commissions came up with recommendations which got ignored and then got implemented by the next one.  :) Morwen - Talk 23:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

In which case Redcliffe-Maud's unitaries must due for a dusting down. I notice a lot of these reviews are used as an excuse to put off reform: "we can't change that until we have the review of this completed" (constantly fobbing off the Middlesex boroughs looking for county borough status for instance) plus ca change! Lozleader 23:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

DNO Map

Just to tell you I have updated the map you created for the Distribution Network Operator page by clearing up some of the borders. --Barry^talk 14:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Convener

Ta. You are the guy with the paperwork! But in Edinburgh Lesley Hinds (the Lord Provost) ain't the same person at all as Ewan Aitken (the Convener). --Mais oui! 20:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. It seems that Aitken's title is Leader, not Convener. My mistake. Ta. --Mais oui! 20:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Scottish local govt adopted an "Executive" system recently, and I am afraid that I know nothing about it! But should not be too hard to find some sources and update the Local government of Scotland article.

Please see: "Councillor Rob Murray was appointed Leader of the Administration and Convener of Policy & Resources". --Mais oui! 20:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

No need: I just have self reverted! Cheers. --Mais oui! 20:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Wales

did the Tories ever take any other Welsh county council ever 1973-1996? it would be nice to do the maths to figure out what the East Glamorgan result would have been in 77, but i'm not sure how feasible that is given the electoral division sizes and stuff. Morwen - Talk 20:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

No that was their high point and one-and-only. The only districts they got were (I think) Newport, Monmouth, Vale of Glam and Cardiff so it would be hard for them to take a whole county, with independents being so strong in most of Wales. I don't believe they ever won any of the pre 1974 counties either. Glamorgan county council was fairly solidly Labour from the early 30s. Lozleader 21:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Loyalties

Elcock notes the "new boundaries did violence to loyalties" and HMSO says (in reference to Somerset and Glocestershire) "Many people, however, disliked the new boundaries and preferred the traditional ones." Both texts agree that people disliked some of the boundary changes but make clear that they *were* boundary changes none the less. Mrsteviec 12:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You have to wonder why a government would need to announce thats its ok to remain loyal to a particular plot of land or other. Surely it is beyond the scope of governments to legislate "loyalty". Mrsteviec

I've included it. I think it works quite well. Thanks. Mrsteviec 12:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Holland arms.png

I did not see anything in the summary about you creating the image. You are saying you drew the image from some historical reference or something like that? If you just copied it from a website or scanned it, then you did not really create it and the Coat of Arms tag is probably the best. I don't know anything about the Coat of Arms tag be defunct. -Regards Nv8200p talk 21:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the tag. Sorry for the misunderstanding. -Nv8200p talk 22:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

new cat

I was wondering. However, VoB treats them as separate units and they were essentially reformed by the Act. Is it really stretching the truth? Mrsteviec 08:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

A brief note on the category page could explain how the districts were formed. Mrsteviec 09:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Censuses

local boosterism. look at Leicester which again contains the unqualified claim that it is the largest city in the East Midlands. Morwen - Talk 11:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Well ,that's another few squatted. I wouldn't mind so much if they actually read what they were editing - look at the nonsense they made on Sunderland. Morwen - Talk 14:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

County Council District Council

Does this sort of relatively minor naming weirdness belong up front and in bold? And in any case, isn't "District" not part of the name of the district? Morwen - Talk 22:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No problems - just have an allergy to seeing 'District' presented as if it was part of a name of a district. Morwen - Talk 22:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

How does what I did look? I rather doubt it : I'd love to see the minutes and legal advice that led them to doing that name-change. I'll ask my parents to check next time they are in Rutland. I understand Bristol has 'city & county of Bristol' signs back, also. Did you see I found an earlier date for Swindon->Thamesdown? I think we may have an issue in the SIs in that the names of the non-metropolitan districts and the non-metropolitan counties are independent, so the non-metropolitan county of Rutland contains the non-metropolitan district of Rutland County County. Did we ever find any evidence of North West Somerset District Council changing its name? Morwen - Talk 22:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Section 74 says "the council of a county, district or London borough may [by resolution] [...] change the name of the county, district or borough". Hmm. ultra vires?  :) Morwen - Talk 22:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Greater London

Just found interesting factlet: according to [9] and [10] ->

"In 1923 a Royal Commission inquiry disclosed both the intensity of localist sentiment and the hostility of the surrounding areas to any proposal to extend the LCC's boundaries to Greater London"

Morwen - Talk 09:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Norton Folgate

Hi Lozleader! Are you sure that Norton Folgate became part of Stepney Borough? I'm pretty sure it is now part of Hackney which subsumed Shoreditch in 1965 therefore....I'm confused...Colin4C 20:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and the excellent info and map links. I guess the obvious rationale for splitting Norton Folgate between two local authorities in 1900 was to avoid having a bit of Stepney jutting out between the City and Shoreditch local authority areas on the Bishopsgate-Shoreditch High Street thoroughfare...Colin4C 10:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

History of local government in the United Kingdom

Hello. Please take a look at History of local government in the United Kingdom. It could do with another editor's perspective. Thanks. Mrsteviec 09:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Counties of Northern Ireland

It maybe worth considering that the county population figures you tagged as {{fact}}, have the term "(est.)" in front of those figures indicating they are estimates. Not that that exempts them from WP:VERIFY. Djegan 23:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Wards?

Given your l33t research abilities, I wonder if you might be able to help at Talk:Billinge_with_Winstanley to find out if there was a ward of Billinge with Winstanley from 1973 to 1979. Also, fancy writing some stuff about Wigan's armses? Morwen - Talk 11:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Info

Thanks for the offer Lozleader. Any info, especially on St. Georges, Westminster would be gratefully received. Thanks. Galloglass 17:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well-spotted

Blocked and rolled-back. Morwen - Talk 17:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Scottish white paper

That seems sensible. I feel it would have been a bit of a stretch putting it in an article in the 1973 act, as it was 10 years before. Morwen - Talk 12:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

10:30, 6 November 2006 Lozleader (Talk | contribs) m (RV rm link to chat site per WP:EL)

I wish to enquiry why my website link, under the Neath Port Talbot wilkipedia page, was removed ?

Port Talbot chat is a not for profit FREE online web based discussion website for the intent of promoting and encouraging community participation and friendship to residents in Aberavon, Baglan, Bryn, Brynbrydden, Cwmavon, Margam, Port Talbot, Sandfields, and Taibach

Our mission is to discuss issues and topics of residents of the Port Talbot, South Wales area. We aim to keep residents informed of local public attendable events, latest community news and give people a chance to comment and express views.

We do exactly what the local authority website does and more so and there link remains intact.

Please explain.

---

(—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Desm0n99 (talk • contribs) .)

Police

Whilst the knowledgenetwork.gov.uk site was up and serving home office circulars, I made a list of ones I could find at User:Morwen/police, which may be useful in filling in dates. Upon closer examinaion the list disagrees slightly with yours so far - devon and cornwall police give the april 1 figure rather than my june 1 figure. not sure what is with that, and original source not accessible any more. Morwen - Talk 22:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I should be very surprised if they became part of Cheshire at a different time than the Wirral county boroughs did, which you also have as July 1, 1967. [11] supports this in the Birkenhead section. (and is patently not a very reliable source anyway, as it gets lots and lots of dates inconsistent (it gives various dates for South Wales Police for example) and claims Birkenhead is now covered by Cheshire Police) Morwen - Talk 12:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On December 4, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Police Act 1964, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thankyou Lozleader for creating this interesting article and comprehensive. GeeJo kindly nominated it for DYK. The majority of entries are self-nom, so please don't be shy.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sussex

Hmm. User talk:Molly Mockford. We probably should be mentioning that Lewes was the county town of East Sussex, at least, and I can find various historical sources claiming it was the overall county town. I have Sussex Archaeological Collections on google books from 1908 claiming the last Assizes were held in Chichester in 1748, and that it lost county town status in late 19th century. They'd alterenated between Lewes and Chichester since 1503, it says. Hmm. Morwen - Talk 17:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Vestries in London

Do you think there's mileage in starting a series of pages on the Vestries and District Boards which ran London before the London Government Act 1899? (And if so, how would be best?) I have quite a bit of information which could be put there. Sam Blacketer 14:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Tower Hamlets arms.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Tower Hamlets arms.png. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Psychonaut 10:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Untagged image

An image you uploaded, Image:IW Arms.png, was tagged with the {{coatofarms}} copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as {{seal}}. If you have any questions, ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 03:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging

Hello. I've had a request to re-tag Image:Londoncountycouncil.jpg. I'm not sure what to put, but I'm sure you do. Could you have a look? Kind regards. MRSC • Talk 15:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks. I've never been able to keep up with rules likes image tagging. MRSC • Talk 08:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey of English Dialects

I think that I ought to give you a big thanks for your work on the article. You've been a great help. Cheers! Epa101 19:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Allerdale_arms.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Allerdale_arms.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Anglesey_arms.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Anglesey_arms.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: coatofarms tag

I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to do such a thing - my bot only orphaned the template (back in the middle of December), and now OrphanBot is working off its contribs. I'm sorry for the undoubted inconvenience this is causing - you may want to look at [12] and [13]. Also, the message above yours on my user page (and my reply) may help. Thanks, Martinp23 12:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Berkshire 1961 arms.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Berkshire 1961 arms.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Suffolk

I added the cities comment to Suffolk. Do you think it is notable that the historic county of Suffolk has no cities? I'd forgotten that metropolitan boroughs take a city out of the county in the modern context but, for instance, many people consider Peterborough to be part of Cambridgeshire, even though it's technically a metropolitan borough. Dancarney 16:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

In as much as you can align historic counties to modern units, it would still leave Bedfordshire, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Dorset, Essex, Huntingdonshire, Rutland, Surrey, Westmorland and the North Riding of Yorkshire (and six or seven welsh counties) city-less, so it's still quite a long list. Derby has only been a city for 30 years, so I'm not sure if it can be considered to have existed in a historic county context. Complicated! As far as Peterborough is concerned, in a "historic county" context it was in Northants. Did the county of Middlesex have any cities, seeing as the City of London was a county of itself (still is, I think), and Westminster was a liberty until the creation of the County of London?

Then there are ceremonial counties (maybe that's what you meant about Peterborough, its in Cambs ceremonially). Just looking at a map, Dorset, Isle of W, Surrey, Berks, Bucks, Essex, Suffolk, Beds, Warwickshire, Shropshire and Northumberland lack cities.

Complicated!

So depending on what counties you're using, there are/were 10 or 11 without cities, not particularly exclusive.

Lozleader 17:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Lauder

Is it your contention that the town has lost its status as a Royal Burgh? The town recently held celebrations to mark 500 years since the reissuing of their charter. Certainly Berwickshire was abolished in 1976 but its news to me that there was a blanket abolition of Royal Burghs. Certainly the Royal Charters were not called in, as were the Arms of old counties. David Lauder 20:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are you (Lozleader) removing all references to royal burghs? At no point were the charters rescinded: these places are still royal burghs, and continue to refer to themselves as such. --Mais oui! 21:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have concerns as above Brendandh 18:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Isles of Scilly

Thank you for your help with correcting my references r.e. Isles of Scilly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Phillip Vincent (talk • contribs) .

Sanctimonia non grata

Thank you for your comments per the deletion request for the Historic Counties Trust. Yes it does indeed appear to be affliated to ABC. I'm sure they've set the website up as a means to circumvent Wikipedia's rules on referencing!!!! What tickles me is it is (or at least claims to be) a registered charity - orphans are clearly not worth the time or money to these people. Thanks again, Jhamez84 23:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Borough v. town

I wondered if you could advise as you seem to be very capable judging by your work. Woking is both a borough and a town. As is Guildford. However, the borough of Waverley where there is no town has its own page. Reading Woking there is a problem with the population stated as it is for the borough not the town. Perhaps you know the way to tackle this sort of issue. Perhaps they should have a town info box and a borough info box. Perhaps they should have two pages. I'm not sure what goes on elsewhere in other counties as I've only looked at Surrey. Thank for thinking about this. PS I liked your deletions of unnecessary links on the Surrey page. SuzanneKn 19:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

An old face

Hello. Not sure if you are aware of this familar face with a very tired argment. [14] 08:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Berwickshire

I note your amendments to this county's page but it is worth pointing out that Commissariot and the Sasine Registers for Berwickshire were throughout their existance at Lauder, not at Berwick or Duns. I'll think on how to get that in, as not all county administration was based in the county town. David Lauder 15:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I was just looking at a webpage about the Commissariot of Lauder which was identical to Berwickshire. When did the commissariots end? Lozleader 15:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Not absolutely certain but it may have been when the counties were wound up. That said the Commissariot was a legal department, not local government. I shall try and find out. David Lauder 16:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

County Palatine of Lancaster

Hi. I see you reinstated the "however" into the county boundary debate. By using that word you are implying that the two areas referred to are different, which they are not. The old county boundaries, which were referred to in 1992, included Lancashire, Greater Manchester, Merseyside and Furness, which is exactly as described on the website. The two wording are just different ways of talking about the same land area, so as I said, "however" is misleading. Pyrope 20:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

R ANGLIAN

None of the other lineage tables have reference to TA and militia 129.31.40.64 14:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Oldham

Recently there has been a new category rolled out for metropolitan boroughs which means that towns in the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham are being tagged with 'Oldham' I am trying to get the category renamed to "Metropolitan Borough of Oldham' since Oldham is a town with different boundaries to the borough. This is part of a direct assault on small town identities (the same group of people who are tagging things as Oldham) are also behind recent changes of altering historic geography on biographies i.e. changing pre-1974 birth locations from Lancashire to Greater Manchester. Also, many of the 'people from Royton' articles are being changed so that they read 'Royton in Oldham' - completely incorrect. I believe the current ill-conceived category names perpetuate these wrong perceptions, so would like the Category:Oldham category renamed as "Metropolitan Borough of Oldham' and make it clear it only applies from 1974 onwards. If you feel like supporting this initiative would please consider voiting for a Rename at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_9#Oldham. Thanks. 88.104.64.157 13:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Berkshire 1961 arms.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Berkshire 1961 arms.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Berkshirearms.PNG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Berkshirearms.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Durham County 1961.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Durham County 1961.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Suffolk arms.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Suffolk arms.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Somerset 1911 arms.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Somerset 1911 arms.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Somerset 2003 arms.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Somerset 2003 arms.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:East Suffolk arms.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:East Suffolk arms.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Nairn

The whole North Nairnville thing is beginning to wear very very thin. Fraslet 19:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Tell me about it. Oh you just did!Lozleader 11:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Rhondda arms.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Rhondda arms.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Rhondda Cynon Taff arms.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Rhondda Cynon Taff arms.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Carlisle and County Durham

Hi Loz, regarding your recent edit to County Durham, I thought Carlise was a former exclave. According to this, it transferred in 1133. Is it wrong? Regards. Logoistic 11:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

First Reply:

I believe the Diocese of Carlisle was formed from part of the Diocese of Durham in 1133. I'm not sure what county (if any) Carlisle was in at the time, I don't think Cumberland existed then, and I'm sure the creation of a diocese would have nothing to do with it. The area was also exchanged between England and Scotland a few times around then. As the article stood, Carlisle was listed as part of County Durham until 1844, which was incorrect. And yes the article you cited seems to be wrong. Their only source appears to be an earlier version of a Wikipedia article.

Lozleader 12:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, you wrote under the administrative county section that "For all non-administrative purposes, such as lieutenancy, the County of Durham comprised the administrative county and associated county boroughs." What legislation did this come under and was the wording "County of Durham"? I appreciate your expert knowledge on this. Logoistic 12:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It was the LGA 1888 Local_Government_Act_1888#Counties_for_other_purposes (I can dig out the exact section if you wish). The 1888 Act did not mention the names of the counties, except in a couple of cases (eg County of London which was an innovation). They were the parliamentary counties. The Local Government Act 1933 eventually listed the admin counties. Official legislation usually used the term "County of Durham" (and indeed "County of Bedford" and "County of Chester"), rather than the common forms. "County of X" seems to have been the official form everywhere.

Examples from the London Gazette:

24th October 1958.

The QUEEN has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm, bearing date the 20th instant, to appoint Colonel Christopher William, Baron Barnard, C.M.G., O.B.E., M.C., T.D., to be Her Majesty's Lieutenant of and in the County of Durham, in the room of the Right Honourable John James, Baron Lawson, resigned.

18th February 1964.

The QUEEN has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm, bearing date the 18th instant, to appoint Sir James Fitzjames Duff, to be Her Majesty's Lieutenant of and in the County of Durham, in the room of The Lord Barnard, C.M.G., O.B.E., M.C., T.D., retired.

5th October 1970.

The QUEEN has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm, bearing date the 1st day of October to appoint Harry John Neville Baron Barnard, T.D., to be Her Majesty's Lieutenant of and in the County of Durham, in the room of Sir James Fitzjames Duff, Knight, deceased.

Lozleader 12:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thank you for the clarification. Logoistic 16:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Derbys arms 1937.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Derbys arms 1937.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:East ayr.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:East ayr.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Rochester u Medway arms.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Rochester u Medway arms.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Devonshire and Dorset Regiment, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Windsor and Elizabeth, the Queen Mother (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)