![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
See [1] for the repeal of some of the traditional counties. Morwen 11:13, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
So I splitted Denbigshire (historic), Flintshire (historic) and Monmouthshire (historic) out based on three important principles
These principles are ones I've been following in for example, deciding whether to merge articles about urban districts and rural districts and it seemed natural to apply it further. I didn't change the Monmouthshire, Denbighshire and Flintshire pages to disambiguation pages (yet). I am open to debate on this - I do notice a lot of incoming links but wonder how many of these are due to infoboxes that we could automate.
I don't consider this means its open season on splits for other cases. (In Scotland the ones that meet these principles would be Aberdeenshire (historic), Moray (historic) and Renfrewshire (historic) which have already been split along these lines.
In fact, I'd like to do one merge - Cardiganshire and Ceredigion currently duplicate quite a lot of content unnecessarily, and actually pretty much most of the content of the two articles would want to be identical. I put a sample of a rewrite at User:Morwen/Card. If we can get that merged, I don't much care where that goes - the merged article at Cardiganshire would be fine by me.
I'm not terribly keen on the separate articles for Montgomeryshire (district), Radnorshire (district) and possibly Brecknock (borough) either. Also not convinced we should be having separate Monmouthshire and Monmouth (district) articles. But since those are definitely defunct entities it's not so much of a big deal as the articles about them wouldn't be expected to have current geographical information - which is where the problem of duplication of content on Cardiganshire comes in. Morwen - Talk 21:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm thinking we should follow the Historic counties of England move for this article too? MRSC 16:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Some editors may be amused by the references to historic counties in this article. Should we cite it here? Probably not. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 20:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion here [3] if anyone is interested. Opinions are welcome. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 09:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
See [1] for the repeal of some of the traditional counties. Morwen 11:13, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
So I splitted Denbigshire (historic), Flintshire (historic) and Monmouthshire (historic) out based on three important principles
These principles are ones I've been following in for example, deciding whether to merge articles about urban districts and rural districts and it seemed natural to apply it further. I didn't change the Monmouthshire, Denbighshire and Flintshire pages to disambiguation pages (yet). I am open to debate on this - I do notice a lot of incoming links but wonder how many of these are due to infoboxes that we could automate.
I don't consider this means its open season on splits for other cases. (In Scotland the ones that meet these principles would be Aberdeenshire (historic), Moray (historic) and Renfrewshire (historic) which have already been split along these lines.
In fact, I'd like to do one merge - Cardiganshire and Ceredigion currently duplicate quite a lot of content unnecessarily, and actually pretty much most of the content of the two articles would want to be identical. I put a sample of a rewrite at User:Morwen/Card. If we can get that merged, I don't much care where that goes - the merged article at Cardiganshire would be fine by me.
I'm not terribly keen on the separate articles for Montgomeryshire (district), Radnorshire (district) and possibly Brecknock (borough) either. Also not convinced we should be having separate Monmouthshire and Monmouth (district) articles. But since those are definitely defunct entities it's not so much of a big deal as the articles about them wouldn't be expected to have current geographical information - which is where the problem of duplication of content on Cardiganshire comes in. Morwen - Talk 21:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm thinking we should follow the Historic counties of England move for this article too? MRSC 16:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Some editors may be amused by the references to historic counties in this article. Should we cite it here? Probably not. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 20:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion here [3] if anyone is interested. Opinions are welcome. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 09:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)