Talk:Warwickshire/Archive

Current talk is to be found at Talk:Warwickshire

1911 section alteration
I think I might have done something wrong by amending bits of the "1911 encyclopedia article" which were clearly out of date (eg. the bit about Coventry Cathedral which was bombed to bits during the last war). In retrospect, perhaps I should have left that alone and just added the information to the beginning or end of the article.

However, now that I have done it, I don't know how to undo it. Deb 15:19, 5 Apr 2002 (UTC)


 * Deb - your revisions are absolutely fine. The text is there to be improved - anyone who just wants to see what the 1911 article said is free to read the original source which is easily available elsewhere.
 * Enchanter 15:33, 5 Apr 2002 (UTC)

Disambiguation vs. using one of the meanings
OK 80.255, Angela, Pigsonthewing, ENOUGH OF THIS PING-PONG EDIT WAR -- It is now 0145 BST and I am going to protect this page until 1000. Conduct the discussion HERE not in Recent Changes. -- Arwel 00:44, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * The page has now (at 18:32, 30th November 2003) been re-protected by Secretlondon. Personally, I would suggest leaving things as they are, as most references to 'Warwickshire' will mean the current administrative area. Thoughts?
 * James F. 18:46, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * No, most references don't specifically refer to administrative Warwickshire! Articles on places could usually refer to both (and more often than not refer primarily to traditional Warwickshire); articles on historical figures/events will almost certainly refer to the traditional County - and directing links to a completely different entity is downright misleading.
 * One suggestion is to include and overview and general information on an overgrown disambig-type page (history etc.), and just the boundary specific details and maps on the other two pages. However, misleadingly linking all references to the administrative county alone is unfactual and unencyclopaedic. 80.255 18:53, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * It is generally considered a Good Thing, when moving pages, to update all of the links to the page in question, updating them as necessary given the context. Perhaps this would be the best course of action to take, updating to this Warwickshire or that Warwickshire?
 * Alternatively, the one page could describe both the traditional and administrative use of the name, as you suggested.
 * But an edit war isn't the way out of anything.
 * James F. 19:02, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Well in this case user:G-Man didn't give me much of a chance to update links. I think the Warwickshire page should give a brief overview of non-boundary specific use of the term "Warwickshire", and then provide visible disambiguating links to Warwickshire (traditional) and Warwickshire (administrative). Of course the links to the initial Warwickshire page from other articles can be updated as necessary (or not, as the case may be, as necessary, if this page could be made to be a reasonable overview and the reference was unclear as to which entity was being refered to). I quite agree that edit wars are not the solution; it is a pity that user:G-Man was determined to start this one! 80.255 19:11, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Disagree completely, firstly I dont see why this article needs to be split at all. Secondly the term Warwickshire is almost always used in reference to the modern county, as it is the primary use of the term it should have the namespace to itself. You can have you're "historic Warwickshire" article if you really insist. But as the primary use of the term, this article should be about the modern county. It will merely cause confusion amongst readers otherwise G-Man 18:15, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * It would be virtually impossible to prove that "the term Warwickshire is almost always use in reference to the modern county [sic.]", even if this were true. However, your continued use of such meaningless and incorrect terms as "modern county" suggests that either you have a very poor understanding of the distinction between the current traditional and administrative entities, or that you are being factious and intransigent on this matter for reasons best known to yourself. Exactly what confusion could possibly be caused by correctly delineating between two different, current and superficially similar entities by clearly demarkating them in seperate, logically named articles? What you are doing, however, in mixing these two confusable entities in a single article, which is bound to cause nothing but confusion! It is common sense to clearly differentiate between such potentially confusing subjects using the standard and conventional wikipedia practice of disambiguation pages. 80.255 20:17, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be split either. It's a county whose boundaries have changed a bit. We don't have an article for every single incarnation of Poland, do we? -- Tarquin 19:18, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * The administrative county and the traditional county are not "different incarnations", nor are they historical changes (like Poland) - they are both current and seperate entities which share the same name - thus they should have seperate articles. They are not different forms of the same county, and this is made very clear by the 1888 local government act. 80.255 20:17, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No, equal disambiguation is not and never has been wikipedia policy. The de-facto policy has always been that if two places share the same name, than the most important and well known of those places gets the namespace to itself. For instance London in England is by far the most well known place called London in the world, and hence it has the namespace of "London" to itself.

Now regarding Warwickshire, the term Warwickshire is ALWAYS (and I realy dont care what you say) used by the general public/media/government as refering to the post-1974 administrative county, which is what most people take as being Warwickshire (and I should know I've only lived here all my life). It is by far the most important entity called Warwickshire. And that is what people will expect to see when they look up Warwickshire. Turning it into a disambiguation page can only cause confusion.

Secondly, all other encyclopedias/reference books. refer by default to the administrative county of Warwickshire, and Wikipedia should be no different. And all modern maps/atlases show the administrative and not historic county boundaries.

Thirdly, making it into a disambiguation page gives undue prominance to the notion that the "historic county" continues to exist as a current entity in any meaningful sense whatsoever, which it clearly does not, and is not used by anyone for any purpose apart from perhaps Cricket.

Fourthly, this issue has already been decided upon at Naming conventions (places) G-Man 22:29, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The Campaign for real Warwickshire
We should probably mention somewhere the Campaign for real Warwickshire. James F. 18:58, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Disambiguation vs. using one of the meanings, again
Would you like me to unprotect the page? Secretlondon 20:13, Dec 1, 2003 (UTC)

I surpose, although await the floodgates when 80,255 returns G-Man 20:22, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Oh, gods, he's back. Reverted, pending further (and proper) discussion leading to a consensus. Hopefully.
 * I'm not going to protect the page, as one shouldn't abuse one's powers, and I feel that I have become too involved in the page at this point to act as a quasi-neutral outsider.
 * James F. (talk) 17:28, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

part of Birmingham
Clunky and difficult to fix: anyone in, say, Yardley (South Birmingham, but until 1911 a village in Worcestershire) would have said, in 1973, that they lived in Birmingham, Warwickshire. Andy Mabbett 21:55, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)