User talk:Acapital

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Acapital! Thank you for your contributions. I am Mountaincirque and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Questions or type at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Mountain cirque 11:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community


 * P.S. I am one of the editors of the Didcot page, do add references and context in general when you add any further information to the page :) Mountain cirque 11:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Historic Berkshire
Over the last year or so you have edited the introductions to Uffington, Oxfordshire, Shrivenham and Faringdon. Today I restored the former wording that was not only clear and accurate, but also conformed with the wording in at least 100 other Wikipedia articles about parishes, villages and towns that ceased to be part of Berkshire in 1974. It is regrettable and unconstructive that you have reverted those introductions to your preferred form.

A county is an administrative unit. Therefore Faringdon, Shrivenham and Uffington are parishes of Oxfordshire, full stop. To append "for the purposes of administration" falsely implies that for some or all other purposes they are still part of Berkshire. This will cause confusion for some readers and increase clarity for none.

Counties that have been dissolved as an administrative unit continue as a ceremonial lieutenancy. But in the part of Berkshire that was transferred to Oxfordshire in 1974, the Queen's representative is the Lord Lieutenant of Oxfordshire, not Berkshire.

Some clubs, voluntary groups and other bodies in that part of Oxfordshire retain "Berkshire" or "North Berkshire" in their names. That is part of their heritage to uphold and celebrate. But it does not mean that the area remains part of Berkshire in any way. Hanging on to "the historic boundaries of Berkshire" may gratify Nikolai Tolstoy and anyone who agrees with him but that is all. It helps no-one.

Over the last decade or so I have revised and expanded the articles on nearly every parish, village and town in the Vale of White Horse District and South Oxfordshire. In every place that was part of Berkshire until 1974, I have made its background clear in the introduction. But 44 years ago they all ceased to be part of Berkshire, full stop. That too must be stated unambiguously and without qualification.

If your preferred wording made any sense, Wikipedia would have to apply it consistently. It would have to say that Further Pomerania and Silesia are parts of Poland only "for the purposes of administration", Alsace and Lorraine are parts of France only "for the purposes of administration", and East Prussia was partitioned between Poland and Russia only "for the purposes of administration". It must imply that because for a previous few centuries they were part of Germany, then for some or all other purposes they somehow remain so.

Likewise Bangladesh would be separate from Pakistan only "for the purposes of administration", Pakistan would be separate from India only "for the purposes of administration", and Wikipedia must uphold the long-dissolved British Raj as somehow continuing to exist. And so on with every other boundary or border that has been moved in recent decades.

How far back do you draw the artificial and arbitrary line? Counties are late-Saxon inventions "for the purposes of administration". England's current borders apply only "for the purposes of administration", because in historical "reality" all of the former Roman Province of Britannia is somehow still a sub-Roman Brythonic state. Or the Celtic kingdoms that preceded the Roman conquest. Or the territory of Bronze Age tribes of Beaker Folk. And so on.

Enough. Please allow WP articles about places no longer in Berkshire to describe the current reality, free from the misleading complications that you have added to the introductions to Faringdon, Shrivenham and Uffington. Thankyou. Motacilla (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Motacilla, thank you for your message. I appreciate your input in this matter, and for my reply I will be referring to topic of the Counties of England only. The historic counties continue to exist, as they were not abolished in the 1974 boundary changes to administrative areas. There are many sources from the government themselves to state the continued existence of the historic counties. Furthermore, this issue has been discussed before on the talk page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements.

Here, I have copied part of my input in that said discussion (dated 15 October 2017), and I hope it will be constructive "WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements, says that we can cover the Historic County in the Lead section (I think that saying 'Historically' seems to refer to a time parameter, whereas 'Historic County' is more like a noun). Similarly, the Infoboxes on some city/town pages (such as Manchester and Birmingham) clearly state the Historic County. Also, county flags represent Historic Counties, not Ceremonial boundaries. There are many pages on county flags.

This creates much confusion for people who read Wikipedia pages. Do Historic Counties exist or not? There needs to be consistency on the site. If the consensus is that they don't exist, then having Infobox information about the Historic County could cause confusion about their current status. Also, county flags should then be removed, because they represent Historic Counties. If the consensus is that Historic Counties do exist, then there should be a change to the guidelines such as WP:UKCOUNTIES, to allow Historic County information to be included without any ambiguity."

Many settlement pages already state the historic county in the infobox, showing the correct reference for settlements. Furthermore, the WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements guideline clearly states the historic county can be included in the lead section.

Thank you.

Acapital (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Indenting
Please can you indent your responses to make it clear who you're responding to and to enable other editors to join in and also respond to that comment? WP:THREAD provides guidance on this, but the basic principle is that you should indent one deeper than the comment you're responding to. When the indentation's become quite deep, I find sometimes the easiest way is to simply copy the colons at the start of the previous comment, paste them in front of mine and add one, but you may find other ways work better for you. The main point is to follow the convention to make it easier for all your fellow editors in the discussion. NebY (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)