User talk:Morwen/archive4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archived talk: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12. Current talk: User_talk:Morwen

Contents 1 Redirecting Automatically 2 Ceremonial counties 3 Email 4 Problems with Georgia article 5 South Gloucestershire 6 Warwickshire 7 Disambiguation 8 delete 9 The Peerage 10 Provisional government 11 dispute notice 12 Maps 13 Georgian Orthodox Church 14 Bradford 15 Maps of Wales 16 Scottish regional maps 17 Maps 18 Brighton & Hove 19 Maps source 20 South Bucks and Spelling 21 Hey look, another map comment 22 Maps 23 MediaWiki messages 24 Missing Maps #1 25 Missing Maps #2 26 Politicians 27 Indonesian Maps 28 Them Maps Again

[edit] Redirecting Automatically

How do you make the pager redirect automatically? I'm reasonably new and still learning how to edit.

#REDIRECT [[Whereever]] Morwen 10:25, Jan 26, 2004 (UTC)

Sweet

[edit] Ceremonial counties

This term has never been used or defined in legislation. Since you are so eager to call UAAs "counties" simply because this is what they were called when created, "ceremonial counties" should be similarly treated and called "Lieutenencies" or "Lieutenency areas" - this is their legal status, not the ABCs. It is also rather more descriptive than "ceremonial county", which could mean anything, and is thus more appropriate in an encyclopaedia. User:80.255

Meanwhile, back in reality, that's not their legal status, except in Scotland. Legislatively they are defined as "counties for the purposes of this Act". Please see Schedule 1 to 1997 c23 [1]. The term "ceremonial county" has 1,000 google hits, and is used by far more people than a bunch of nutcases led by an astrologer. By the way, please stop referring to me with incorrect pronouns. Morwen 15:16, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)

And while your jabbering irrelevancies, back in the real reality two things are apparent:

1. These area were defined in the Lieutenencies Act - and you're trying to tell me that they are not officilly "Lieutenencies"?

2. The term "ceremonial county" has never been used to officially describe these entities.

Call them "lieutenency counties" if you're determined to put the word "county" in; however "counties for the purposes of this Act" simply means that they can be conveniently refered to as such within the Act itself - not that "counties" is their official name.

However, whether or not you accept their legal status as "lieutenecy areas", they certainly have no legal status whatsoever as "ceremonial counties". 80.255

There is no legally defined name for them - therefore we go with common usage. Unless you can find a more commonly used term, that is. I note that 'lieutenancy county' has even less usage than 'lieutenancy area', so that makes it a worse suggestion. The term is certainly used by official sources, although not often - See [2] . Morwen 15:35, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)

And you know, the best part of it is that the ABC actually say that with respect to Wales - 'The phrase "preserved county" should be replaced with the more appropriate "ceremonial county".' [3] Morwen 21:51, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Having fun I see :-) ho-hum. PS did you reply to my last email cause if you did I didn't get it G-Man 16:03, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think my outgoing email is borken. Morwen 21:48, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)

Borken hey, You'll have to email me via the wikipedia email I think, as that seems to work G-Man 20:20, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with Georgia article

Hi Morwen,

Thanks for resolving the Mikheil/Mikhail Saakashvili dispute. I would be grateful if you could also take a look at the related Zviad Gamsakhurdia article, which is being subjected to an edit war by the same user responsible for the Mikheil Saakashvili debacle. As you'll see from Wikipedia:Problem users, several users (including myself) are unhappy that User:Levzur keeps making POV changes to articles but refuses to discuss them (see Talk:Zviad Gamsakhurdia for the "discussion" of that article, which pretty much consists of rants from his side and appeals for discussion from mine). I would be grateful if you could lock the Zviad Gamsakhurdia article until such time as he decides to start discussing his changes. Thanks for any help! -- ChrisO 08:35, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Done already. I think the language barrier may be a problem here. Morwen 08:37, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)

Possibly, although looking at the editing history, it seems to be more down to political partisanship than anything else. Thanks for the assistance. -- ChrisO 09:52, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] South Gloucestershire

Hi Morwen,
There is something missing from the first part of South Gloucestershire. It says "South Gloucestershire is a local government, created in 1996 when the county of Avon was abolished.
Could you fill in what should come after "government"?
Thanks Adrian Pingstone 10:39, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Warwickshire

Hello Morwen, I've drawn up a map of Warwickshire here media:Warwickshiremap 700.png which shows both its modern and historic boundaries, do you like it?, If so I think it might now be safe to unprotect the warks article so I can add it G-Man 22:49, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

looks very cool. I look forward to seeing them for all the other counties.  ;) Since I'm a party in the editwar I asked a neutral party to do so. Morwen 22:55, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, but there are only so many hours in the day ;). I think I'll reload it in JPEG format, not really surposed to do that with drawings but my computer cant seem to cope with PNG G-Man 23:10, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

One change that I would make, but I don't know how easy this is, would be to show the boundaries of Solihul, Coventry, and Birmingham boroughs. The dot doesn't really illustrate that Birmingham overflows from historic warwicks. Morwen 23:13, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)

OK I should be able to add the borough boudaries. Not sure about how to represent overflowing Birmingham though, I surpose it says that already in the article G-Man 23:18, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This better media:Warwickshiremap 700.jpg G-Man 23:39, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

That looks great. Morwen 23:42, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)

Rough - but feeling better than I did this morning. Secretlondon 15:17, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)

What is transient? Its up for debate but I'm thinking of fame for less than 15 minutes. We just don't want be a collection of every bit of US media hype. I know it's not precise. Secretlondon 15:53, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)

Given behaviour of people here, they will waste megabytes about whether their page that has been VfDed on that basis is 'transient' or not. Would you cast the net to include Jade Goody? Eddie the Eagle? Michael Hastings, 14th Earl of Loudoun? Morwen 15:58, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation

Since you turned New Party into a disambiguation, can you please fix all the links at [4]? --Jiang 22:32, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Sure. Well, I'll try,a nyway. Whether i succeed or not depends how much the served continues to suck for me. Morwen 22:33, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)

Done. Morwen 22:52, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)

---

What do you think of the wording at the Warwickshire article especially in the traditional county section. Sorry to keep going on about counties I cant think of anything better to do at the moment (really should get a life I know). :PS did you get my last email BTW G-Man 22:59, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

Hi, there's a vote going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage about how to handle naming articles on peers. Just contacting everyone who's posted over there to inform them. john 06:21, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

Hey, check out the complete hash that User:Zestauferov has made of Prussia. All the material on the Hohenzollern Kingdom which became a Weimar Land has been moved to the inaccurate page Brandenburg-Prussia. john 05:27, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

Just wondering, do you know if there are any plans for Northampton to become a unitary authority?. Its certainly large enough to be one, if so I should mention it in the article G-Man 17:02, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I've not heard of any plans. The next reform is going to be the breaking up of Cumbria, North Yorkshire, County Durham, Lancashire, Cheshire, and Northumbria into unitary authorities. If I were guessing what unitary authorities we might see after that, I would include Cambridge (perhaps), Oxford, Northampton, Huntingdonshire, an extended North Warwickshire, Gloucester. Morwen 17:10, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, that's certainly rather odd seem as Northampton has a population of nearly 200,000. Another thing if I was to draw some more county maps, do you know where I could find some maps which shows district boundaries etc, cause I copied the warks one from a book.

BTW: where do you get your information from. G-Man 17:22, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I would assume it was considered, but Northampton Council didn't want it. It wasn't forced on districts. Which info? The breaking up info is from [5] Morwen 17:26, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)

---

Hi Morwen I've added towns which to my knowledge have some green belt space between them and the London Conurbation but are part of the London economy. I don’t think political administration ( eg by London Boroughs) is sufficient to exclude places set apart by green space. eg Purley is not a part of London but is administered with the London Borough Of Croydon. The article points out what a loose concept commuter belt is. I prefer the more precise Satellite town . Lumos3 20:11, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] delete

Thanks for the delete of Thunderbird! I was looking for an admin to do just that! - UtherSRG 21:05, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I spotted it needed doing so I did. You are welcome, and thanks. ;) Morwen 21:13, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The Peerage

Greetings again, Morwen. I see that you have chosen to vote against a rule requiring that titles of peers appear in the titles of biographical articles on them. Forgive me for taking the liberty of attempting to convince you to change your position.

It is my considered opinion that, in general, the addition of peerage titles does no harm, while their deduction does no good. Take, for instance, the case of Horatio Nelson. What harm is caused by writing instead Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson? But indeed I find that subtracting the title detracts from the article, for the title provides a clue to the origin of the appellation "Lord Nelson". With the appropriate redirects, the inclusion of a title should cause no problem.

It can be suggested that if the exclusion of a title does not detract, then it is acceptable to exclude. However, such an exception - which is perhaps what you have voted for - can be wildly misinterpreted by other users, who will find that not mentioning, say, "Earl of Chatham" in William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham, will cause no negative effects whatsoever - failing to realise that Pitt was known as "Chatham" rather than "Pitt" for a significant portion of his career.

A further insinuation can be made to the effect that the "most common name" rule should prevail. Unfortunately such a rule cannot be easily applied in the cases of peers. For the most common name is, say in the case of the Viscount Nelson, "Lord Nelson", which is entirely ambiguous, for one does not necessarily know whether one is referring to Horatio Nelson, or his brother William Nelson (1st Earl Nelson), or the Earl Nelson's heirs. This can be extended and generalised for other peers as well.

So, my general thought is that more information (to a reasonable extent) is better than less. Note the reasonability standard - I have no hopes of seeing the crude, awkward, and unwieldy article titles mentioning every last one of the peer's titles. One hopes to have convinced you to change your vote. Feel free to respond on my talk page. -- Clarence Threepwood, 9th Earl of Emsworth

Information is not being removed. All that will happen is people will write [[Harold Macmillan]] instead of [[Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton|Harold Macmillan]], thus saving keystrokes. The information about the title is still there in the article. I am not going to debate any further on this - I have been keeping track of the debate, and that is my final vote. Morwen 18:27, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

As it is, a link to [[Harold Macmillan]] leads exactly to the same place. So long as there are not double redirects, I don't see what's wrong with having links through single redirects like that. john 19:42, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It is best practice to use pipes to avoid redirects. Morwen 19:44, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, ultimately, but there's no short-term harm in leaving them there, until those of us who are pushing for the change get around to moving them. Nonetheless, I see your point. At any rate, it looks like as though Lord E's proposal will fail, so people like Macmillan will certainly not be referred to by their peerage titles. john 19:54, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You can be assured there are only about 10 or so candidates that I really don't want to be at X, Y. Morwen 20:17, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

I suggested over at User talk:Lord Emsworth a suggested policy for exceptions - basically people known primarily by courtesy titles (specifically Lord North and Lord Castlereagh, who are the only people where I think that's really true), 20th century political figures who received peerages after retirement (like Macmillan and those other PMs), and perhaps people known in other fields who didn't use their peerage title much (like Russell). john 20:22, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I might add to that Lord Carrington, which currently redirects and maybe should stay. Perhaps Lord Carrington can be a redirect, and Baron Carrington, can be the general article? Morwen 20:29, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose any policy that leaves an article about someone at an article like Lord Suchandsuch or Baron Suchandsuch. He should be at Peter Carington, 6th Baron Carrington. (There have been other notable "Lord Carrington"s, like the one who was a Liberal minister at the beginning of the century and became Marquess of Lincolnshire). john 21:17, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid you can't convince me by assertion, so please stop trying. ;) Morwen 21:22, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to convince by assertion. I (and others) have laid out that particular argument several times. Basically Lord Carrington isn't his name. It's a title he held. As Emsworth says, having an article mainly located there is like having Tony Blair's article at Mr. Blair - it may be what he's commonly known as, but it's not his name. No other encyclopedia catalogues peers that way, either. It's also ambiguous - there have been other Lord Carringtons who are worthy of their own articles. Baron Carrington ought to be an article about the peerage title itself. Lord Carrington redirecting to the article on the 6th Baron is fine. john 21:32, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Then we are violently in agreement. Morwen 21:35, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

Wonderful! john 21:38, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

But returning to the original point, nothing would be lost by adding peerage titles to article titles. The titles, by no means, would become too clumsy. What would be lost if they were removed is consistency, and, more importantly, accuracy, for the peerage title is considered to be a part of the name of the individual in question. -- Lord Emsworth 19:11, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you aren't going to win me over by repeating the same arguments over and over again. My vote stands, and I would appreciate not being browbeaten. Morwen 22:42, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

I am most compunctious and apologetic for causing offence, and do humbly beg your reprieve. -- Lord Emsworth 23:56, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Provisional government

Hi Morwen, thanks for writing Russian Provisional Government, 1917 - I planned to do it myself after fixing the numerous links, and will extend it now. Kosebamse 14:50, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

Hello Morwen, what exactly was that plan about North Warwickshire becoming a UA you were talking about, I havn't found any reference to it anywhere. Does it entail expanding it to include Tamworth or something?.

PS: I have a feeling youre email isn't working, just to let you know. G-Man 20:06, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Me too. I keep meaning to look at it, but I am trying to rest my hands atm - RSI :( There is no plan, it is just me randomly speculating. Basically, Warwickshire is a silly shape, as you may have noticed. And North Warwickshire+Nuneaton+Bedworth = population of about 170,000. UA size! Morwen 20:11, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)

OH OK I surpose Warwickshire is a rather silly entity in it's present form. It might make sense I surpose to merge Nuneaton & Bedworth with Coventry UA, seem as both town's are basically just an extension of Coventry in all but name (hope no-one from Nuneaton is reading this). But that's just me speculating. G-Man 20:37, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yeah. There was one plan in the North Yorkshire splitup docks, that suggested annexing Selby to the City of York! (Look them up on a map). Looks like it will end up part of the East Riding of Yorkshire, though. Morwen 20:38, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)

Changing the subject slightly, I sent you an email a few days ago. I dont know whether you have received it/ replied to it and I havn't received youre reply. Or you dont want to reply to it. Or you're emails broken, just I'm rather confused as to what's going on G-Man 21:12, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I take it by youre silence you dont want to reply, thats OK. Although it would be more polite if you just said so rather than ignoring me. I havn't upset you or something have I?. G-Man 22:16, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I sent you email by wikipedia email. Please accept my apologies for not saying so here. Morwen 22:28, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)

Oh OK thanks, I apologise for my previous comment G-Man 22:56, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] dispute notice

Can you please add a dispute notice to Anti-Zionism? (''The neutrality of this article is [[Wikipedia:NPOV dispute|disputed]].''). That version is very strongly disputed. (1 2) -- Zw 13:29, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

According to my sources, Birmigham became a city in 1896 not 1889, it says that in the Brum article, It became a county borough in 1889 which is not the same thing. G-Man 21:06, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. I got my info from the Cities of the United Kingdom article, whatever its called. Morwen 21:17, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)

Actually some sources say Birmingham was made a city in 1889 and some say it was 1896 so I'me not entirely sure which is right.

PS: did you get my email reply. G-Man 22:29, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

msged. Morwen 22:38, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Maps

About those maps you've been adding. Wouldent it make more sense to put those maps on the county pages and put numbers on the individual districts/boroughs, and have a numbered list of the different districts/boroughs alongside, like I did on the Warwickshire map.

It may well do. I'm basically copying the german districts format atm - see Bad Doberan (district). Wasn't planning on doing any more for the moment. Trying to figure out the best way of labelling them was my next task.

Because for example the map on the Birmingham page has no context explaining what the map is about, which might confuse readers. Did you draw the maps by-the-way?. G-Man 20:57, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yeah - like yours, based on traces. They do need context. Morwen 21:11, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I've added the context in a standard way. I'm holding off labelling because I want to figure out how to do this automatically, and more to the point, letting people reproduce my style when something changes. My next task will be making better maps of the broader regions, and of the four nations. Morwen 23:34, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Georgian Orthodox Church

Morwen, thanks for chipping in on the Georgian Orthodox and Apostolic Church page. Please keep an eye on it, though, as Levzur will almost certainly try to revert the most recent changes (check out the discussion - if you can call it that - on the related talk page). -- ChrisO 22:53, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I shall keep an eye on it. I do wish he would try to make the effort to understand that we are not going to believe everything he says, just because he says it. Morwen 22:56, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)

I know what you mean! I suspect he doesn't fully grasp the meaning of a collaborative encyclopedia. He is providing some useful material, to be fair about it, but I would guess that he doesn't much like it being changed by others. -- ChrisO 23:08, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I wonder if I could ask for your assistance in a related matter? Levzur keeps making major changes - adding and deleting entire paragraphs - but flagging each one as a "minor edit". I'm aware that many editors chose to watch only major edits, so I'm fairly sure that this is an attempt to get in under the watchlist radar (I'd confine my own watchlist to major edits if it wasn't for Levzur's abuse of the minor edit flag). I've already posted to his talk page to direct him to the guidelines on using the minor edit flag, but my comment was deleted by him a few hours later (see [6]). He may not want to listen to me, given that he thinks I'm a "misinformator" (sic), but as a sysop could you possibly persuade him to stop misusing minor edits? -- ChrisO 10:35, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Bradford

I don't differentiate between Bradford the Council and Bradford the place. I know the council includes outlying places such as Shipley but I'd just include them as districts. It may be of course that people from these districts are offended by the Bradford connection and change them but I'd just include. Secretlondon 18:10, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Maps of Wales

Morwen, I find the maps you've been adding to the political divisions of Wales to be a useful touch, but regarding them as Just Another User, I would find it useful if you provided the map of the "current" boundaries with a useful label, say "Powys Current Boundaries" or "Powys 1996 -".

Ok, shall do so.

While on the topic of Powys, it appears to me that the map of the boundaries for 1974 - 1996 are identical to the map of the current boundaries. is that so? Or are my eyes deceiving me? If the boundaries haven't changed since 1996, why do we need a second map? -- llywrch 20:22, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The boundary in the northeast is slightly different. Morwen 20:26, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)

I didn't notice this until I read your response. -- llywrch 00:53, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Scottish regional maps

Hi, I saw you've added excellent maps to some of the current Scottish regions (at least for Stirling and Falkirk). On a related note, I'm inclined to think that Stirling and Falkirk should refer to the cities/towns of those names, and Stirling Council or Stirling (unitary authority) (sigh, why couldn't they have called it "Stirlingshire" or something sensible...). Do you know whether this has already been discussed somewhere, or if there's an appropriate wikiproject to which I should turn for guidance. Thanks! -- Finlay McWalter 22:58, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Agreed entirely. (Done all of them, btw, apart from Orkney and Shetland).

I have come across a similar issue with the districts of Leicestershire, were I split Harborough (district) and Market Harborough. The technical term to use here would be Stirling (council area), unfortunately, so I can only suggest that.

My next task is going to be creating maps for all the remaining unitary authorities in England, then I am going to sort out the articles about Welsh counties. After then, who knows? Btw, at some point there will also be nice blue maps for the 1974-1994 'regions'. Morwen 23:06, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Maps

My you have been busy!. Are you going to do the same thing with the West Midlands (county) page as you've done with the Greater Manchester article and put the map numbered with districts there instead of on the individual articles BTW?, I personally think thats a much better way of doing it G-Man 23:40, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm planning to. Morwen 23:44, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Brighton & Hove

Can we keep Brighton about Brighton and Hove about Hove please. Whilst they have very recently become a city, they have for a very long time had separate identities and the majority of the article refers to the History of Brighton and has virtually nothing about Hove. Locals still say that they live in either Brighton or Hove and not in the city of Brighton & Hove. Also if you are refering to the city it is almost invariably rendered as "Brighton & Hove" (and may indeed be the official rendering [7]) rather than "Brighton and Hove". Mintguy (T) 23:53, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Does this mean you no longer think that Brighton and Hove should be a redirect to Brighton? Morwen 23:57, Jan 24, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and for the official name, see [8], which clearly uses an 'and'. Morwen 00:08, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)

Well that may well be the case the council render it with the "&" in their official logo (as above) and this is how it appears on most if not all signage and documents related to the city. Mintguy (T) 00:18, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Maps source

I'm curious what program you're using to generate all your maps? I was considering making a map of the sea areas (Fisher, Dogger, etc.) for the Shipping Forecast page, and the original source (in whatever vectorised format you're using) of the British Isles map would make a handy (and consistent) jumping-off point for me. Thanks! -- Finlay McWalter 19:49, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I am using the gimp, and the maps are a lot prettier than the process I'm using them to make them. No vectors unfortunately, the maps are just stylised traces. :( This is why its taking me so long to do them ;) Morwen 19:56, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)

Wow, that entirely sucks. I certainly admire your sticktoitivness. You'd think the geog dweebs would have some open-source map rendering software somewhere, and some open-content geog database. I'll see what I can dig up. -- Finlay McWalter 20:09, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] South Bucks and Spelling

I've moved the article from South Bucks to South Buckinghamshire, so if you want to go and work your magic with the maps now it might encourage someone to destub the page. Incidentally, I've had to correct spellings on at least two articles that I'm watching that you've updated recently: a misspelling of "Wycombe" and a statement that Buckinghamshire is adjacent to Herefordshire. -- Graham :) 00:38, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Done. I really should be more careful with the spellings. Morwen 07:13, Jan 28, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hey look, another map comment

Hi Morwen, you're doing a fantastic job producing all of these maps.  :) I think these pages would really benefit from larger maps showing the principal towns and cities in each region (which would fit in very well in all the white space to the right of the town/village lists). Is this something you're thinking of doing in the future? (Er, not to heap more work on your plate or anything!). I wouldn't know how to go about that sort of graphic wizardry myself. I think my next big project after I've dealt with the anniversary pages (January 1 etc) which are all getting reformatted a bit so they match and are NPOV (very tedious) will be to lend a hand with the UK geography and individual county/town pages. Again, love the maps, Fabiform 02:58, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I had been pondering the matter. It would be vastly more complicated than the present thing I am doing, which requires no or little artistic ability on my part. Morwen 07:13, Jan 28, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Maps

Sorry Morwen another comment about maps. Just thinking wouldent it be better to put the district maps on a seperate page about the districts rather than putting them on the articles about towns, like I've done with Warwick. For example the article Tamworth is about the town and not the district, therefore putting a map of the district could be somewhat confusing to uninitiated readers. Good work your doing BTW.

Oh yes, are you going to reply to my last email. G-Man 22:53, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Replied. I blame my inbox being full of spam.  ;) Morwen 23:05, Jan 29, 2004 (UTC)

Er I dont seem to have got it, try again (must be the secret agents at work again, intercepting your emails :)) G-Man 23:43, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] MediaWiki messages

Hi Morwen, I just stumbled upon your Template:GFDL message. There is a list where such messages are listed at: Wikipedia:MediaWiki custom messages. I don't know if you forgot to link it there, or if you didn't know about it, so I just figured I'd drop you a note. Dori | Talk 06:19, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Maps #1

Hi. Well done on the maps, well overdue for someone to do this. But I think you may have had a problem with a few. The one for Lewes for example. Mintguy (T) 15:23, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't see a problem, unless you mean fact that all images uploaded between x and y have gone missing (they are going to be restored at some point). See Wikipedia:Village Pump for more info. Morwen 15:24, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Maps #2

A lot of the maps which you've recently dowloaded dont seem to open. For instance Daventry, the image name just sit there with a red cross next to them. I dont know whether this is just a problem on my computer or something. G-Man 13:57, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Read the paragraph above. Morwen 13:59, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Politicians

Congratulations on banishing red links from MPs elected in the UK general election, 2001. That's a lot of politicians, and a job well done. --rbrwrˆ

[edit] Indonesian Maps

Good work on all those maps! But it appears that your Indonesian map is missing the border between Gorontalo and Sulawesi Utara (see [9]). --Wik 20:16, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

Ta. I caught that already, but I'd thought I'd fixed all my maps here. Obviously haven't. Morwen 20:21, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Them Maps Again

Are you aware that the various maps you created for the districts of Buckinghamshire no longer work? Is it a link issue or do they not exist any more? -- Graham :) 21:18, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

See above, I've already had to answer this question twice ;) Morwen 21:19, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

Oh right, I didn't read that. Please accept my apologies. -- Graham :) 21:27, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No worries. Morwen 22:05, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)