This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi, I see you've added mention of civil parish status to a few local pages such as Otley - could I suggest it would be useful to link to civil parish, to help people who don't know the technical term? PamD (talk) 13:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. I must admit I was in two minds whether to link to civil parish or not. In the end I decided the term was fairly well understood, and that it would be creating unnecessary links, but I really don't have a strong feeling either way. There seems to be no clear pattern on English sites - some are linked, some aren't (consistency never being Wikipedia's strong point!). I actually came to the Otley site whilst updating the List of civil parishes in West Yorkshire page, so that may well have influenced my opinion. If you think it would be better linked, feel free to do so.Skinsmoke (talk) 13:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hangon)) to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Sallicio23:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Please re-create this article with good content: as soon as I saw it, I knew that we needed to have an article on the topic. The reason that it was deleted was not that it was a problem topic but that the article was tiny and gave no context. Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
The page had been sitting there for a while? A couple of hours at most. I had actually gone to eat having, I thought, put enough on to justify the page remaining until I got back! The page was intended to form part of the subpages to List of civil parishes in England following a change in legislation allowing civil parishes to be formed in Greater London. There are none yet, as would be made clear once the page was completed, but they can be added as the situation changes over the ensuing months and years. It could be argued that the page should be left until a civil parish has been established. However, that leaves the list of counties in England incomplete (each other county has a page). Skinsmoke (talk) 01:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Why don't you just write a few sentences with a reference or two, talking about how there were long no civil parishes there but there will now be some? Assuming that you have the source in front of you, it surely won't take more than a few minutes. Do you want the text that I deleted? If so, I'll give it to you by creating a user subpage for you. Nyttend (talk) 02:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Please - won't get round to it tonight, and there wasn't very much of it, but it saves me having to think too much! Skinsmoke (talk) 02:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. The general principle is set out in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places), and I agree, it's ugly and alien to English eyes. However, on re-reading the policy I actually think you're right. There IS provision for Metropolitan Borough of Lewisham, London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and County Borough of Stockport, and on reflection, I think they should be changed back. I haven't actually changed that many, because I was finding it pretty tedious, but if you want to help by removing the Move on any you've noticed I'd be more than happy. Incidentally, Crayford Urban District is still wrong (it should be Urban District of Crayford), as are Chester-le-Street (district) and Boston (borough), which should be District of Chester-le-Street and Borough of Boston respectively. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
No problem, it's an easy mistake to have made (I think I did it once a while back and got a slap on the wrist for it!). I'll probably pick this up tomorrow. Thanks for compiling the list for me, --Jza84 | Talk 02:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Monifieth Landward district
Hi. Seem to be crossing mice with you again. I wonder are you getting confused? As far as I can see from the following, most of the Monifieth District was in Dundee district in 1975, but a lot was "returned" to angus in 1996....
The definition of the district under the scheme:
Scheme for the division of the Landward Area of the County into Districts
and for the establishment
of District Councils, made by the County Council of the County of Angus in terms
of Section 25 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, dated 7 March 1930
Monifieth District.
Monifieth and Dundee electoral division: (Parish of Monifieth, Parish of Dundee)
Liff and Banvie electoral division
Mains and Strathmartine electoral division
Auchterhouse, Lundie, and Fowlis Easter electoral division (Parish of Auchterhouse, Parish of Lundie, Parish of Fowlis Easter)
Newtyle and Kettins electoral division (Parish of Newtyle, Parish of Kettins)
Murroes and Tealing electoral division (Parish of Murroes, Parish of Tealing)
Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 definitions:
The City of Dundee district:
The county of the city of Dundee.
In the county of Angus — the burgh of Monifieth; the district of Monifieth (except the electoral division of Newtyle and Kettins).
In the county of Perth — the electoral division of Longforgan.
Perth and Kinross District:
The county of Kinross.
In the county of Angus — the parish of Kettins.
In the county of Perth — the burghs of Aberfeldy, Abernethy, Alyth, Auchterarder, Blairgowrie and Rattray, Coupar Angus, Crieff, Perth, Pitlochry; the districts Central (except the parish of Muckhart), Eastern Highland, Perth (except the electoral division of Longforgan); the electoral division of Ardoch.
Angus District:
In the county of Angus — the burghs of Arbroath, Brechin, Carnoustie, Forfar, Kirriemuir, Montrose; the districts of Brechin, Carnoustie, Forfar, Kirriemuir, Montrose; the parish of Newtyle.
Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 defintions:
Angus Area:
Angus District
From City of Dundee District - Tayside electoral 30 (Monifieth) and that part of 31 (Sidlaw) which, until 16 May 1975, had been in the county of Angus.
Dundee City Area:
City of Dundee District except Tayside electoral 30 (Monifieth) and 31 (Sidlaw)
Perth & Kinross Area:
Perth & Kinross District
From City of Dundee District - that part of 31 (Sidlaw) which, until 16 May 1975, had been in the county of Perth.
You're right! I had overlooked the rural area being transferred to the City of Dundee, having assumed it was only the Burgh of Monifieth. Sorry! Incidentally, do you have a copy of the "Local Government (District Council Electors) Order (Scotland), 1930", which I presume is where the schedule of Districts are listed? Skinsmoke (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
No, but most of them were listed in the Edinburgh Gazette. I should have posted the link, I believe thay have added an Edinburgh option to the London Gazette citation template.... One moment while I try and figure it out.... Lozleader (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Think this is the right link for the Angus one. There are quite a few other counties in that issue. If you use the advanced search option all sorts of wonderful things can be unearthed! "No. 14633". The Edinburgh Gazette. 11 March 1930.
Thanks for that, though I sometimes wonder if I'm doing more harm than good! I've left List of civil parishes in Greater Manchester alone, as someone's obviously spent a fair bit of time and effort on it. I'd like to get it in the same format as the other counties, perhaps copying a bit of the introduction over to the other counties, but also retaining the table but perhaps moving it under the map, but am reluctant to do so without discussion. Any suggestions? Skinsmoke (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think moving this from Brereton, Staffordshire to Brereton and Ravenhill is a good idea - the "Ravenhill" part is fairly obscure, even locally. It doesn't appear on any maps (although there is a Ravenhill Park). Most people would expect to find the page under simply "Brereton". Is there a standard somewhere that says the page must be at the official civil parish name? If not, I think it ought to be under the common name of the village. — sjorford++09:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, the parish name seems more appropriate to the article which applies to the whole parish rather than just the Brereton part. There is very little specifically about the village rather than the parish as a whole. The neighbouring parish of Armitage with Handsacre is dealt with in the same way, though in that case the two villages also have individual entries (there is a little more information on the individual villages which justifies separate entries). In the case of Brereton I just didn't think there was enough there to justify separate pages. Skinsmoke (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
No, I agree there should only be one page. But there is not a "Brereton part" - Brereton is the whole parish. Ravenhill Park is smack bang in the middle of the village. The parish name is just an archaic name for the same place. — sjorford++00:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Clearly it isn't just an "archaic name". There was previously a parish of Brereton (which covered a much larger area, including Brindley Heath and a large part of what is now Rugeley). That was abolished in 1934 when Rugeley took over its suburbs. When, in the last few years, the new parish was created from the unparished area that had previously been Rugeley Urban District, the name Brereton and Ravenhill was chosen, and is still used to this day for all official purposes. I would argue that that should therefore be the name of the entry, though, of course, anyone searching for Brereton will be led to the disambigulation page giving a choice of :-
Brereton, Barbados
Brereton and Ravenhill, a civil parish in Staffordshire, England
Brereton, Cheshire
Perhaps, if you think it appropriate, there should be a note in the text stating that local people usually refer to the area simply as Brereton.
I think the Cheshire example is in fact Brereton-cum-Smethwick fwiw By the way I compiled a list of what I believe to be all the civil parishes in England a couple of years ago if it's of interest. Geopersona (talk) 08:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. Brereton-cum-Smethwick was indeed the name of the Cheshire parish until 1936. In that year it was merged with Davenport, the new parish simply being called Brereton. You might be interested in List of civil parishes in England which links through to the individual counties. Another useful, but often inaccurate, source is A Vision of Britain Through Time. Finally, a comprehensive list of the position in 2001 can be obtained from Census 2001 Neighbourhood Statistics. And, of course, any additional information you can provide is always welcome!Skinsmoke (talk) 12:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Civil parishes in Greater Manchester
I've noticed you've gone through adding references for populations, and thanks for that. You noticed a problem with Worthington, ie: the figure was out by a factor of 10. At first I thought this was my fault as I was the one who reformatted the list of civil parishes in Greater Manchester ages ago and added the references, but even Statistics.gov can't decide what's going on. Have you run into this problem with any other civil parishes?
Also, have you considered joining the Greater Manchester WikiProject? It's a group of editors with a collective interest in improving articles related to Greater Manchester, and members are generally happy to help each other when they can. Nev1 (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Nev. Thanks for your note. Must admit Worthington had me baffled! This is the first case I've come across where the Neighbourhood Statistics simply disagree with each other. I don't guarantee the figure is right - it's always possible there's been a new estate built or something but it looks suspiciously like someone at Neighbourhood Statistics got it wrong when compiling the list, especially as both sets of statistics have the same date. Using the extrapolation from the historic census figures, I think the lower figure is going to be correct. If you agree with the lower figure, I'll let you play about with the figure in your table - I'm frightened to touch it!
I'm glad you contacted me, because I wanted to do a bit of work on the List of civil parishes in Greater Manchester but was reluctant to touch it as someone had obviously gone to a lot of effort on it. I'd like to get it into the same basic format as the other pages that form part of List of civil parishes in England (see List of civil parishes in South Yorkshire}, whilst retaining the table and perhaps incorporating some of the introduction into the other pages in the series. Let me know your reaction to the idea.
I'm leaning towards a population of 135 because of the Vision of Britain source and the reasons you gave. I'm not familiar with of the list of civil parishes in ... articles, the layout for GM is just something I thought up because it was looking rather neglected. How do you suggest changing the GM article? I don't think it would be worth breaking the table into smaller tables by metropolitan district as there just aren't enough civil parishes to do that, but I can understand why other lists do. At the moment, the South Yorkshire list is looking rather unsourced.
And finally:
Hello, Skinsmoke/Archive 2009, and welcome to Wikiproject Greater Manchester! Thank you for your generous offer to help contribute. I'm sure your input will be much appreciated. I hope you enjoy contributing here and being a Greater Manchester Project Wikipedian!
As a project we aim to have all our articles comply with the various editing policies and guidelines. If you are contributing to an article, it is good practice to ensure that it's properly referenced with reliable sources, otherwise any contentious content may be removed by another editor. A good starting point for articles about settlements in Greater Manchester is the WP:UKCITIES guideline.
If you have any questions, feel free to discuss anything on the project talk page, or to leave a message on my own talk page. Please remember to sign all your comments, and be bold with your ideas. Again, welcome, and happy editing!
I just undid your changes to Norton Radstock. Firstly copy/paste is not the way to rename an article - use the "move" function as this carries over the full edit history and the talk page. Secondly I dispute the reason for the move - see my reasoning on the talk page. --TimTay (talk) 08:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. The change was done using the "merge" function as a page already existed for "Norton-Radstock" and the "move" function was not therefore available. It was carried out in accordance with the instructions at Help:Merging and moving pages. Prior to the merge I checked that there had been no previous discussion, but the only items of relevance were a discussion on whether there should be articles for the individual towns of Midsomer Norton and Radstock; and a further discussion on whether the article on the village of Clandown should be merged into the main page. There was no reasoning or supporting evidence for chosing "Norton Radstock" rather than "Norton-Radstock".
Bath and North East Somerset District Council's website is not much help either. They seem to use both versions, presumably depending on the personal style of the person who has input the information. Their list of clerks to parish and town councils uses "Norton Radstock" Parish and Town Councils but list of statistics and census information uses "Norton-Radstock". Statistics and Census Information
Having said all that, the style preferred by Norton Radstock Town Council is, as you point out, clearly "Norton Radstock", as used in their letter headings and minutes, and on their town badge Finance and General Purposes Committee. On that basis, I agree that should be the version used on Wikipedia. Skinsmoke (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Be a little patient! Computer crash half-way through editing meant I had to save what I'd done and re-boot. To see what's happening (though it won't be finished tonight) take a look at List of civil parishes in Nottinghamshire. Within the next day or so, each civil parish will be referenced to its former (pre 1974) local authority. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
With the new(ish) year, I think it's right to look back over the year just gone. Last year was massive for our project, with lots of successes building on a successful 2007. In terms of featured content, we became the leading wikiproject in 2007, but 2008 saw us cement our status as one of the UK's leading wikiprojects: having started the year with most FAs (two more than London and Yorkshire), but falling behind in terms of GAs, we now have more FAs and GAs than any project under WP:UKGEO. While our aim is to improve all articles related to Greater Manchester, not collect trophies, we now lead the field by a long way and everyone deserves to feel proud for their part.
We've had articles featured on the main page, both in DYK? and as today's Featured Article, but success is more than a matter of numbers; the project has grown into a community where editors join together to provide information and improve Wikipedia. A great example of this is the work our project did on Denshaw. Back in April, it was targeted by vandals and as a result was featured in national news. We stepped in and improved and protected the article, showing what WP:GM is capable of. This is undoubtedly the noisiest project in the UK and it's strength comes from the wide range of interests of its many members. We've even been so successful that we were accused of forming a claque.
During 2008, our numbers have increased and, while some have left, we've welcomed many strong editors who will help bring the project more success. With so much emphasis on Good and Featured articles, it's sometimes easy to forget that a lot of effort goes into articles that don't get recognition. The table below shows that the number of B-class articles has increased since the start of 2008, and that the proportion of stub-class articles under our project has gone down.
My own experience of Wikipedia has been positive and enjoyable, especially due to WP:GM. I've worked on interesting subjects with nice people, and hopefully the experience is similar for others. We've covered subjects as varied and interesting as castles, mummies, computers, Olympic swimmers, and wind farms, stuff I probably wouldn’t know about if it wasn’t for Wikipedia. I enjoy being a part of this project, and as we approach the WP:GM's second birthday (24 February) I'm sure it will continue to go from strength to strength in 2009.
Would you like to write the next newsletter for WP:GM?? Please nominate yourself at WT:GM! New editors are always welcome!
Project News
January has been a very successful month, with lots of article promoted, and hopefully more to come in January:
Promoted articles:
Chadderton is a town in the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham. It has a long and interesting history beyond that of its mill town façade; a Celtic hill fort, a medieval lordship and still an important industrial and metropolitan town.
Nico Ditch stretches from Ashton-under-Lyne to Stretford and according to legend was dug in a single night to defend against the Danes.
Article news: Cine City, Withington is at WP:GAN, please keep an eye on these articles and if any issues are raised in their reviews help to address them. Unfortunately, despite User:Joshii's effort the Greater Manchester portal did not become featured.
Get a lead/static image in every infobox of every town in the county.
Member News
There are now 48 active members of WikiProject Greater Manchester (with a further 14 members inactive since 1 July 2008) as 2 new members joined the project in January:
Welcome from everyone, and let's remember to make new members feel included in the project! If you need help, you can go to the project talk page, or perhaps look at the list of members to see if anyone can help. The project is always looking for new members, and if you spot an editor who makes good changes to Greater Machester related articles why not invite them to join up by adding this template to their talk page: ((SUBST:Welcome WPGM)).
Thanks
A big "thank you" goes to all the editors who help make this WikiProject what it is; no edit goes unnoticed.
Reminders...
Images! There are some good images around, but more are still needed if we're going to get a "lead/static image in every infobox of every town in the county"! The requested photographs category lists some of the articles needing images.
Hi, I noticed you added a lot of sources to the above article, but I'm not sure if all the information added is relevant. While it would be useful to mention what preceded the civil parishes, I don't understand why Sale Municipal Borough and Urmston Urban District are mentioned. I don't think any of either became civil parishes, and this applies to most of the boroughs and districts listed. For an idea of which pre-1974 areas line up with the modern parishes, I'd recommend comparing these two images: [1] and [2] (civil parishes are in red). Nev1 (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello Nev. Thanks for your note. What I've done is to start to bring List of civil parishes in Greater Manchester into line with the other pages in List of civil parishes in England, the page it was spawned from. Whilst I appreciate that, at present, there are very few civil parishes in Greater Manchester (only the City of London, Greater London and Bristol having fewer, each with zero) it is in a format that allows easy editing in the future as and when new civil parishes are created, without the need for renumbering the lists. It is possible to do this in another way, but that would necessitate future editors finding a citation and tends to look very messy when you have 50 or so parishes in a single rural district. Whilst not ideal for a county at the extreme such as Greater Manchester, it is a compromise format that can fit all counties, taking elements from a number of pages that people had worked on over the years. To see how it fits into the whole, take a look at List of civil parishes in Hampshire, List of civil parishes in North Yorkshire, List of civil parishes in West Yorkshire or List of civil parishes in Kent, the last two being prime examples of counties that have seen a number of new parishes created in formerly unparished areas over the last 15 years. I would hope to get Greater Manchester into the same format eventually, whilst retaining the table and map (so there will be a reference to the unparished areas in each Metropolitan Borough). Skinsmoke (talk) 02:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
While I understand that you've included so many references in an effort to help future editors (those who want to change the article), I don't think it helps the current reader (those who are seeking information). The relevance of all those links is not explained, and probably confusing to someone unfamiliar with the subject. I think we should address the situation as it is now, rather than how it might be in a few years time. There's no need for the references to be lost, they can be placed on the talk page for future reference. I believe that because Greater Manchester has so few civil parishes, it's perhaps inappropriate to treat it like other counties. Nev1 (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
If you take a look at the other pages, the relevance becomes fairly obvious. The unparished areas are given in the introduction to each district/borough and these can also be linked to the notes and citations (though I haven't got round to doing that yet). This should help to avoid the problems that have happened on some pages where well-meaning but misguided editors have added ecclesiastical parishes to the lists.
Well I don't like the current format, but unless I can think of a better one it should stay as it's in line with the other lists. However, while I am a supporter of consistency across wikipedia, not just within articles, I have to say that the standards set by the other lists of civil parishes are very low and are not something to be aspired to. I'll go away and think about the list. Thanks, Nev1 (talk) 13:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
You should have seen the standards of the other lists three months ago! An attempt has been made to experiment at putting them into table format. however, the problem for most counties is that this then becomes very difficult to edit for inexperienced editors, particularly as some of the new unitary authorities can have several hundred parishes! As it says at Wikipedia:Lists :-
Although the use of tables to display lists is discouraged—because they provide low-quality contextual information and accessibility and have a more complex notation that hinders editing—there are some instances where they can be useful, such as when three or more columns are required.
Ultimately, I haven't been able to come up with anything better and haven't seen any better suggestions. And the lists are in the correct format per Wikipedia:Lists :-
Bulleted lists
As a matter of style, list items should start with a capital letter. They should not have a punctuation mark such as a period, a comma or a semi-colon at the end, except if a list item is one or more full sentences, in which case there is a period at the end.
This style is appropriate for long lists, or lists of entries which consist of both a link and explanatory text. Also, it is appropriate when the article already has several titles and/or subtitles.
The Title provides a direct edit point, if one enables section editing. It also enables the automatic table of contents system to detect the list. It is not required, however.
Happy birthday! It was the project's second birthday on 24 February, so thank you to everyone who's helped improve and Greater Manchester related article, not just our members, your work is very much appreciated. The last month has been very successful, with lots activity:
Nico Ditch stretches from Ashton-under-Lyne to Stretford and according to legend was dug in a single night to defend against the Danes.
The Cine City, Withington, was the third cinema to open in Britain and when it closed in 2001 it was the third longest running cinema in England. It was opened in 1912, and demolished in 2008.
Current nominations: As of the completion of this newsletter, there are no GA nominations, but Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine and Buckton Castle are at FAC. The articles detail the world's first stored-program computer, and the best preserved castle in Greater Manchester. There's a good chance that one or more of these interesting articles could be promoted, so please keep an eye on them in case there's any way you can help!
Charles White (physician) and Worsley featured in the DYK section of the front page last month (actually, Worsley featured in January but was missed out of the last newsletter!). For details of the DYKs by the project that have appeared on the main page, see Did you know?
The project's cleanup listing has been updated with stats from 24 February 2009. As of 8 October 2008, 447 (26.5%) of 1689 our articles needed a clean-up, this has risen slightly to 455 out of 1809 (25.2%). This is encouraging as the proportion has gone down, and indicates the standard of the project's articles are steadily improving. While the high-profile successes of GAs and FAs are important, the project's aim is to improve all GM-related articles.
WT:GM: The project's talk page is a forum for discussion and to keep up to date with the latest project developments and initiatives put it on your watchlist! Recently there have been discussions on articles to be deleted, the congestion charge, how to get members involved and working together, and plenty of other stuff.
Sister projects
In an attempt to encourage communication between related wikiprojects, or to at least raise awareness, this section is dedicated to the important goings on of WP:Merseyside and WP:Cheshire, our sister projects and the only other user groups dedicated to improving articles in North West England.
WP:CHES – After a period of low activity, the project has picked up recently, with initiatives (such as beginning a newsletter and sending a questionnaire to its member) to encourage greater participation from its members. This has paid dividends with two GAs being promoted in February and greater activity in general.
WP:MERSEY – After being set-up in September 2008, the project is experiencing a period of lowish activity. While the project has a handful of FAs and GAs, most of its articles are unassessed; assessing requires no familiarity with a subject, so any help WP:GM members can lend would be greatly appreciated.
Other news
There is a meet-up scheduled for 14 March in Manchester for anyone interested. It is not organised by WP:GM and is open to all wikipedians. More details can be found here.
Get a lead/static image in every infobox of every town in the county.
After a flurry of activity in January, progress on the Salford article has slowed, but it is steadily progressing towards a good standard. If you think you can help improve an article, be bold and get editing! Although these are the project's explicit short term aims, we endeavour to "improving all Wikipedia articles that are concerned with Greater Manchester", so every edit is valuable.
The project compared
The Greater Manchester WikiProject is one of the leading UK-based groups. Some other projects are no as lucky as we are in the numbers of active enthusiastic users. Below are some statistics of the other leading UK projects and some geographically close to Greater Manchester.
There are now 46 active members of WikiProject Greater Manchester (with a further 17 members inactive since 1 September 2008) as 1 new member joined the project in February:
Majorly is an experienced editor who has recently decided to join WP:GM, and has been working hard on Cheadle Hulme. The project is always looking for new members, and if you spot an editor who makes good changes to Greater Machester related articles why not invite them to join up by adding this template to their talk page: ((SUBST:Welcome WPGM)).
Reminders...
Images! There are some good images around, but more are still needed if we're going to get a "lead/static image in every infobox of every town in the county"! The requested photographs category lists some of the articles needing images.
Delivered on 1 March 2009 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.
Middlesbrough and Yorkshire
Hi Skinsmoke.
Thanks for the info and explanations you provided regards policy.
I still need some guidance tho...
The first paragraph of current page for Middlesbrough is factually incorrect. While Ceremonial Counties do exist - stating that Middlesbrough is in North Yorkshire is not true and certainly misleading.
I second paragraph is literally true so lets leave it alone for now.
To observe Wikipedia policy and avoid misleading readers of the page why not alter the first paragraph to read:
Middlesbrough ( pronunciation (help·info): /ˈmɪdəlzbrə/) is a town in the conurbation of Teesside, England. It forms the majority of the borough of Middlesbrough, which encompasses the town and several outlying villages which have become suburbs.
Mentioning the ceremonial county of North Yorkshire in the first paragraph might make sense but would render part of the second paragraph superflous.
I have restored the various village pages you moved in Worcestershire, the original articles were written about the villages in question, not the civil parish. If you wish to create articles for said civil parishes, please write new articles, rather than hijack existing articles. Thanks! Jenuk1985 | Talk17:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
If that's what you wish, fine, but I suggest you have another look at Catshill. The revision you have made removes the citation for the population, leaves an education section that reads extremely awkwardly, fails to identify whether we are talking about a civil parish or an ecclesiastical parish and fails to clarify that the population refers to the civil parish of Catshill and North Marlbrook. That is not an improvement. The others no quibbles with. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Rod. Thanks for your note. The official title of the unitary authorities is District of, Borough of or City of (or in one case County of) and per Wikipedia UK policy, that should be the form used in the lead. However, some articles have got round the problem by starting, for example :-
I'm not sure that, in the case of North Somerset, adding the ceremonial county adds any additional information, but generally I think that works quite well. What do you think?
Looks all right to me although I have had discussions with editors insisting that the ceremonial county should come first - would it be worth asking for consensus at WP:UKG? Also lots of people have been unlinking England as a common word.— Rodtalk13:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I think the examples at naming conventions are enough to quote at any editors insisting that the ceremonial county should come first, and there are thousands of articles in the style I quoted. I have seen a discussion somewhere about unlinking England (think it may have been in the archives of the WikiProject UK Geography, or whatever it's called). The conclusion was that England isn't important enough to be unlinked, and should always be linked! So that puts us in our place! Skinsmoke (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
re parishes
Nice work Skinsmoke, .... did you know there is wiki markup to do Notes .... very similar to the "References" syntax. The avantage is that it autonumbers so that is some adds a new Note then it all updates itself. Victuallers (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that Victuallers. Yes I was aware of that. I and a couple of others have experimented with several formats for showing the notes. The problem with the "Notes" syntax is that it looks OK for 2 or 3 cross references but where, as in the case of some rural districts, you have 50 or 60 it not only looks a mess but means that anyone trying to edit the page is faced with a bewildering jumble. The present format is the best we have been able to come up with (and we have searched hard to find a more robust way of doing it). It does however have the disadvantage that, if anyone adds an additional former local authority, the whole lot have to be renumbered. That is why all the former authorities have been referenced, whether or not they have parishes at present, so that if a new parish is created in a previously unparished former area the numbering system doesn't need to be changed. Working back from Worcestershire to Derbyshire, so far the format has proved robust enough not to have any problems. If anyone adds a further reference they , so far, have been adding them as a reference, which of course autonumbers. Skinsmoke (talk) 09:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Brighton and Hove
I think there's a bit of confusion here. The anonymous editor removed Brighton and Hove from the list and I reverted the edit. Brighton and Hove are therefore on the list. David (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry i didnt read through all of the text in that section of the talk page, just sounded like u were making an argument that people from England / Wales / Scotland dont like the term either and that was another reason for renaming the article. Because of certain editors on that page the conversations are nonsense most of the time. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Your inate racism is showing through, dear. Get over yourself, and learn how to behave on Wikipedia before commenting on Talk pages. Wikipedia encourages anyone to edit, no matter what their gender, race, religion or place of residence. Articles on Welsh places are not the private preserve of a small cabal with pure Welsh blood, nor indeed is Wicipedia, the Welsh version. I suggest you take a look at Megalomaniac point of view. If you have something civil to say in suitable language and tone, I will be more than happy to discuss with you. Skinsmoke (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
You have not answered my point at all. And I asked why you thought you know more about those places than the people who have contributed. I didn't mention race or nationality: for all I know you might be Welsh or Walloon, it makes no difference to me at all so please don't call me "racist" as I most emphatically am not. And I think your edit to St David's clearly proves my point, now that you mention it, which you don't, of course. Leaving that diversion aside, you still haven't answered my question. Your moves of these important articles with hundreds of links to them, plus related category names etc, were done without any attempt at having a discussion first to see what other people might think (no matter what their nationality might be). Enaidmawr (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Skinsmoke - this is an issue that, in my view, overlaps the competencies of both WP:UKGEO and WP:WALES. If you can provide evidence of a clear consensus-based policy decision at WP:UKGEO, we at WP:WALES would like to see it, please. And then we can discuss, calmly, whose views should take precedence, and why. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry there's not been a newsletter for three months, it's not that there hasn't been anything to say but that there almost hasn't been time to say it...
On 20 March 2009 Manchester was "today's Featured Article" and received over 44,000 visitors. This was the culmination of about 2 years of effort from a lot of editors who found the article in this state before the founding of the project. Along with Greater Manchester, it's our flagship article and for it to reach the mainpage is a great achievement. It was an incredible collaborative effort and shows what the project is capable of, and since then we have gone from strength to strength. The Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine was Today's Featured Article on 30 May, with 33,000 visitors.
Promoted articles:
Carrington Moss is an 1,100 acres (450 ha) peat bog in Trafford; in the 19th century, it was reclaimed to be used agriculturally and for the disposal Manchester's waste, and is still used for farming.
Manchester Mummy is about Hannah Beswick, whose macabre fear of being buried alive lead to her demanding that her body was kept above ground and checked periodically for signs of life.
The town of Sale in Trafford was probably founded in the Anglo-Saxon period and is best known as the home of physicist J. P. Joule the founding place and former home of and Sale Sharks rugby club.
Cheadle Hulme is a suburb of Stockport that formed from several small hamlets, rather than growing around a church which was usual for medieval villages. (also Stockport's first GA!)
Mellor hill fort is the only Iron Age hill fort in Greater Manchester and was only discovered in the 1990s.
Partington, in Trafford, is a town and civil parish that was until the Manchester Ship Canal opened in 1894, a mainly agrarian community. With the opening of the canal, Partington became a major coal port and following the Second World War was expanded as an overspill estate for deprived parts of Manchester.
With all the project's success, we must be careful not to become complacent. In March, David Beckham was delisted as a Good Article because it lacked enough references and was poorly written in parts. Improving an article and getting it reviewed for GA is a lot of effort and it's a real shame to see the article delisted, but a reminder that our role as an article writer is two-fold: once we improve them, we have an obligation to maintain them. Beckham is the kind of person who is regularly in the news, so the article will get a lot of attention and need regular updating, and it was written by members of WP:FOOTBALL, but let's take it as a reminder of what's needed from us.
WT:GM: The project's talk page is a forum for discussion and to keep up to date with the latest project developments and initiatives put it on your watchlist! Recently there have been discussions on articles to be deleted, the congestion charge, how to get members involved and working together, and plenty of other stuff.
Get a lead/static image in every infobox of every town in the county.
Over the past three months, we've succeeded in our aims of bringing Eccles and Worsley to GA status, thanks largely to the seemingly inexhaustible Parrot of Doom. Recently another aim was added: bringing Stockport to GA standard. It's currently C-class and has some well developed sections. It will be a difficult task, but worthwhile considering it's Greater Manchester's third largest settlement. Also, the importance of bringing Salford to GA has been emphasised; it's currently B-class and should be the easiest of our aims to accomplish, although it's been there for a long time. Let's see if we can put this one to rest soon.
The project compared
Over the past three months, WP:LOND and WP:YORK have had a massive upsurge in the number of articles under their auspices. And interestingly, WP:YORKS has had an upsurge in GAs (10), and WP:LOND has had an increase in both GAs and FAs (8 and 10 respectively), closing down the gap with WP:GM. Although WP:DERB appears to have lost a GA, one of their articles was incorrectly tagged; however Derwent Valley Mills is being prepared to become a Good Article candidate, and hopefully will be the project's first. With the recent retirement of Ddstretch and Espresso Addict, WP:CHES has lost two of its most active contributors, but is still managing to produce good articles such as list of castles in Cheshire (FL) and John Douglas (now a Good Article candidate). The majority of WP:MRSY's articles are now assessed and will hopefully go from strength to strength.
There are now 48 active members of WikiProject Greater Manchester (with a further 17 members inactive since 1 September 2008) as 2 new members have joined the project since the start of March:
The project is always looking for new members, and if you spot an editor who makes good changes to Greater Manchester related articles why not invite them to join up by adding this template to their talk page: ((SUBST:Welcome WPGM)).
Reminders...
Images! There are some good images around, but more are still needed if we're going to get a "lead/static image in every infobox of every town in the county"! The requested photographs category lists some of the articles needing images.
Hi! An article you have been involved with has been tagged by its parent project as being in need of a little attention or further development. If you can help with these minor issues please see: Talk:Cofton Hackett
Frankfurt am Main is a bit more difficult. It appears to be officially called Frankfurt Airport in English (Frankfurt Flughafen in German). However, my understanding was that city names only are used in the Airport-dest-list. If we are going by the name of the airport (as we do in, for example, Malta) then it should be Frankfurt, but if we are going by the name of the city it should really be Frankfurt am Main.
Cheadle Hulme is a suburb of Stockport that formed from several small hamlets, rather than growing around a church which was usual for medieval villages, although there is evidence of activity dating back to the Bronze Age.
Did you know that after the collapse of the Broughton Suspension Bridge in 1831, the British military introduced the order to "break step" when soldiers were crossing a bridge? Featured on the Did you know? section on 6 June 2009.
Other news:
Recently Salford was turned into a disambiguation page with the article on the settlement moved to Salford, Greater Manchester. This will hopefully make it clearer to the reader that Salford, Greater Manchester, and the City of Salford are not the same thing. Just remember to specify which Salford next time you're adding a wikilink to an article!
Although it wasn't technically this month, list of people from Wigan was created on 2 July, and any help populating the list with sourced names would be great. It's one of nine such list for the boroughs in Greater Manchester (Bury doesn't have a list yet) and they all need populating.
Remember to be careful about editors claiming places are still in Lancashire, today I had to revert someone insisting that Leigh isn't in Greater Manchester and recently the Friends of Real Lancashirevoiced their dislike of the Lancashire article so this issue isn't going to go away.
Just remember that the project watchlist can help us catch vandalism and is worth checking from time to time.
WT:GM: The project's talk page is a forum for discussion and to keep up to date with the latest project developments and initiatives put it on your watchlist! Recently there have been discussions on articles to be deleted, the congestion charge, how to get members involved and working together, and plenty of other stuff.
Get a lead/static image in every infobox of every town in the county.
Recently another aim was added: bringing Stockport to GA standard. It's currently C-class and has some well developed sections. It will be a difficult task, but worthwhile considering it's Greater Manchester's third largest settlement. Also, the importance of bringing Salford to GA has been emphasised; it's currently B-class and should be the easiest of our aims to accomplish, although it's been there for a long time. Let's see if we can put this one to rest soon.
Member News
No new members joined the project in June and there are 45 active members of WikiProject Greater Manchester (with a further 20 members inactive since 1 January 2009). The project is always looking for new members, and if you spot an editor who makes good changes to Greater Manchester related articles why not invite them to join up by adding this template to their talk page: ((SUBST:Welcome WPGM)).
The project compared
In June, WP:LON has a massive upsurge in the number of FAs, with some great work by Iridescent in promoting a swathe of bridge articles to FA. WP:YORKS has over taken WP:GM in terms of GAs, and for the first time since June 2008 (when WP:LON had the lead), WP:GM is not the project with most GAs. In June, the Derwent Valley Mills became a GA and is WP:DERBY's first GA although there are more likely candidates in the pipeline. WP:CHES continues to perform strongly considering it has few active editors, and in June John Douglas (architect) was promoted to FA and there is currently a FLC. In June, there was discussion at WT:MERSEY about how to generate more audited content (ie: GAs and FAs) and since then one article has been promoted to GA, there is one GAC and other articles being prepared for GAC.
Images! There are some good images around, but more are still needed if we're going to get a "lead/static image in every infobox of every town in the county"! The requested photographs category lists some of the articles needing images.
Just for your future reference, re this edit - the coding key that follows the DEFAULTSORT "magic word" should be stripped of diacritics, so that the article sorts correctly in categories.
If you leave the ó in Córdoba in this case, it would sort after Cz* and not with the Co* words. Might come in useful at some point in the future, you never know! Best, Knepflerle (talk) 01:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I had actually just done a search on the page for Cordoba and tried not to change the links to other languages or image links. That one slipped through, though I must admit I hadn't realised what it did anyway. Sorry! Skinsmoke (talk) 01:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
No problem whatsoever - it's hardly the best-known bit of wiki-syntax! Just thought it was worth pointing out. All the best, Knepflerle (talk) 01:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Burley in Wharfedale
copied from Burley page
Name
There is a difference between the Village of Burley in Wharfedale and the civil parish of Burley. the parish also covers other settlements, including Burley in Woodhead. Burley in Wharfedale does not. As this article relates to the village of Burley in Wharfedale, can I suggest it's name be changed back to the correct name for the village, and if necessary a seperate page created for the Parish of Burley?
hello, as far as i see, i did not "remove the reference to the 2007 elections." but you are right, it has to be moved from "Demography" to "Politics".--Ajnem (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
The parish in Herefordshire is not unique in the English wikipedia - it would have saved us both time if you'd checked before reverting. Saga City (talk) 12:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I had checked, but had only come up with Dulas Bay. Somehow I had missed the Dulas disambiguation page completely. Apologies again, it's not even as if it was getting particularly late at night! The onset of swine flu perhaps? Skinsmoke (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
No need to apologise. Struggling myself; broke specs yesterday morning so can't read screen with 'backup' pair. Best Wishes Saga City (talk) 08:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Move
Hi, I left a message over at Talk:Quincy Homestead#Move?. The article is meant to be about the modern landmark; there's no longer a "Quincy homestead", since it's broken up into several non-contiguous sites around the city and much of it sees various other residential and commercial use these days. I'm working on some historical info. that would fit well into the Quincy, Massachusetts article, but the Quincy Homestead article (and its coordinates) was created for the Dorothy Quincy House, which the city calls the Dorothy Quincy Homestead, not a defunct Quincy Homestead. As someone who's been researching the city's history, I think the current name is misleading and confusing. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Salford is Greater Manchester's second city (although it is the wider district which has city status), but for most of its history it was larger and more important than Manchester. The Salford Quays area will become the home of CBBC and BBC Sport in 2011.
The Peak District was the first national park in Britain and spans Cheshire, Derbyshire, Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire, Staffordshire, and West Yorkshire. It was used by the Dam Busters and used as a location for the film based on the story.
Other news:
There's been a lot of article activity in the last month, especially in Wigan-related pages. Wigan is the only borough in Greater Manchester without a GA or FA to its name, and it would be great if this could change. A lot of work has been put into Tyldesley, any and help to get it to GA would be great. There's also been a high-profile new article created: media in Manchester. Pitch in on the talk page if you're interested!
Just remember that the project watchlist can help us catch vandalism and is worth checking from time to time.
WT:GM: The project's talk page is a forum for discussion and to keep up to date with the latest project developments and initiatives put it on your watchlist! Recently there have been discussions on articles to be deleted, the congestion charge, how to get members involved and working together, and plenty of other stuff.
Get a lead/static image in every infobox of every town in the county.
Last month, we achieved our long-standing aim of bringing Salford up to GA status. It's been a fine effort and perhaps we can concentrate on our other objectives, especially getting Stockport, the largest settlement article not to be at least B-class, to GA.
Member News
There are now 47 active members of WikiProject Greater Manchester (with a further 20 members inactive since 1 January 2009) as two new members have joined the project since the start of March:
J3Mrs has done some fine work on Wigan-related articles, especially Tyldesley so hopefully we can help him with his efforts. The project is always looking for new members, and if you spot an editor who makes good changes to Greater Manchester related articles why not invite them to join up by adding this template to their talk page: ((SUBST:Welcome WPGM)).
The project compared
In July, WP:LON almost doubled in scope and now has over 12,000 articles – far more than any other UK county WikiProject. Last month, the Peak District was promoted to GA; the area is mainly in Derbyshire but covers several other counties and is a massive achievement for all involved. WP:CHES continues to perform strongly considering it has few active editors, with one FL promoted in July and another in the pipeline. WP:GM is still the leading UK county project in terms of FAs and by proportion of audited content (ie: GAs and FAs). A lot of effort has gone into producing this project's articles, so let's make sure we keep tags on them and that they don't degrade.
Images! There are some good images around, but more are still needed if we're going to get a "lead/static image in every infobox of every town in the county"! The requested photographs category lists some of the articles needing images.
That's not what it says at all. The actual passage is:
Block quotes: As already noted above, we use quotation marks or block quotes (not both) to distinguish long quotations from other text. Multiparagraph quotations are always block-quoted. The quotations must be precise and exactly as in the source. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question.
Italics aren't acceptable in either format. From the MoS:
For quotations, use only quotation marks (for short quotations) or block quoting (for long ones), not italics. (See Quotations below.) This means that (1) a quotation is not italicized inside quotation marks or a block quote just because it is a quotation, and (2) italicization is not used as a substitute for proper quotation formatting.
Also from the MoS: "A long quote (more than four lines, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of number of lines) is formatted as a block quotation." Basically, if the quote is short you format it inline, with quotation marks around it. If the quote is long (as defined above), you format it as a block quote (separate paragraph, indented from both sides using the tag or template, and no quotation marks). In neither case should italics be used unless they are in the original quote. The quote you edited was too long to put inline, so it has to be formatted as a block quote. --Srleffler (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake; I had missed that completely. Would suggest the passage I quoted is clarified, as it is a little confusing. Am not familiar with long quotes as I have never used them, and had looked to the Manual of Style for help prior to making the edit. A fat lot of good that did! Skinsmoke (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Editing thanks
Thanks for all your good work, so far, at Negative index metamaterials. I hope you continue working on this article. I am going to try to make the "Science background" sections much more readable, so it reads like an encyclopedia, not a thesis or essay. Thx for your feedback regarding this.Ti-30X (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Appreciate the message, but this is a bit outside my field! I had a little go at some of the non-science stuff, but most of it I'll leave to you guys! My fields are geography and local government, rather than a physics. Anyhow, I'll keep an eye on how things are going and wish you luck with the article. I detect you've got a lot of goodwill from people on this, and they really want to help you make it work. Enjoy the ride! Skinsmoke (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Da iawn, diolch. Bit confused on this one. Do we have a situation where the village and community have different names? And why, for heaven's sake? The capitalisation only seems to have appeared in recent years, the village having previously appeared as Llannerchymedd or Llanerchymedd. I Would suggest we try and clarify with either the community council or Isle of Anglesey County Council.
I have done a search on the county council's website which only adds to the confusion. I have tried to confine the search results to the last five years :-
Jeni Farrell at Llannerch y Medd and Gwen McCreadie at Dulas were interested in providing short-term livery with bed and breakfast facilities, however this would only be realistic if there was development of sustainable access – at present though there were places to ride locally these were permissive only and permission could be withdrawn. from the same document.
By that stage I was losing the will to live. The only conclusion I can draw is that people spell it however they are feeling at a particular moment, and that that feeling may change a few lines further into the report!
As far as its likely spelling by the man - or county council! - in the street goes, this is indeed the case. The rule I gave, which we follow on cy: (or at least try to!), is the generally accepted one at an academic level in contemporary Welsh. However we have always been non-Conformists of one variety or other and you won'r need to go far to find someone who'll say "That's nonsense! This is how we've always spelt it!". I can only say that, personally, I find Llannerchymedd easier to live with than 'Llannerch-y-Medd', which just looks clumsy (as does 'Llannerch Y Medd', although some people skip the hyphens altogether the capital 'Y' is not neccesary). In a sense, therefore, there is no single absolute authority, so unless the Welsh government issues a decree on the spelling of Welsh placenames - probably lead to riots in the street! - there is no one 'official version' in cases like this and I certainly wouldn't rate the ONI very highly as an authority on Welsh placenames. There is a dictionary of Welsh placenames, recently published, but I'm just a poor scholar and can't afford to buy it so don;t have it here. A search in the Melville Richards database - here - gives some interesting historical examples but it's not intended to be an authority on the correct modern spelling. Enaidmawr (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I'd prefer to go by whatever is right in Welsh (I'd also prefer Ynys Môn to Isle of Anglesey, but don't see much chance of that happening.) On the whole I think we English are lazy when it comes to foreign words, but don't really like to offend, and most of us try to get our heads round Porthmadog, Conwy and Y Felinheli once we realise what's going on. Incidentally, I have friends whose dotty aunt lived in Port Dinorwig. They kept getting cards from her saying that she had moved to the same house in Y Felinheli; they thought she was getting a touch of Alzheimers until I pointed out that she hadn't actually moved, but the village name had changed!
By the way, don't (in this case), blame the Office for National Statistics and Ordnance Survey too much. The procedure with communities, as with parishes in England, is that the naming is down to the county council. Whatever they chose they are free to use. If the name changes, usually in response to a request from the community concerned, there is a procedure where they notify the Royal Mail, Office for National Statistics, Ordnance Survey, the Assembly Government and Boundary Commission for Wales, and it is done. If the Ordnance Survey and Office for National Statistics are using Llanerch-y-Medd, it will be because that is what Isle of Anglesey County Council has notified them to use (and in this case, there will have been a formal name change at some time since 1973, otherwise it would still be Llanerchymedd).
There's no easy solution. We're faced with the same situation on Welsh Wikipedia. Where several spellings exist with no clear consensus we tend to use an online resource - which I forgot about last night! - published by Canolfan Bedwyr, Bangor University. This can be regarded as an authoritative source. It's mainly intended for people to look up Welsh/English English/Welsh versions of placenames in Wales, when they exist, but can also be used to find the standard Welsh spelling. Very useful. Go here and use the search box and you'll find they give the spelling 'Llannerch-y-medd'. I'm surprised at Cyngor Ynys Môn - they really should know better, especially with a bunch of placename specialists on their doorstep in Bangor - but then given the utter shambles the council's been in for years now perhaps it's not so surprising after all! Checked a few other resources. Llannerch-y-medd is the spelling used on the map Cymru published by Cyhoeddiadau Stad, which gives its authorities, including two important books (which I don't have, damn it!), Rhestr o Enwau Lleoedd (Univ. of Wales Press) and Yr Enwau Cymraeg ar Leoedd by Bruce Griffiths (ditto), as well as the consultative committee on Welsh placenames set up under the old Welsh Office. Apart from one or two names I think the map and its sources are very reliable (don't know if it's still in print - I've had my copy for years and it's getting a bit dog-eared). Atlas Môn (Cyngor Gwlad Môn, 1972) also gives Llannerch-y-medd: this is easily the best resource of its kind for the island, even if it was published nearly 40 years ago. Maybe I should copy and paste this to the talk page, for future reference? Enaidmawr (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Aw, don't leave me in suspense! What about the two "big" ones: Betws-y-Coed and Pen-y-Groes? The only offline resource I have, which has served me well over the years, is Atlas y Cymry, published in the 1970s. My copy is falling to pieces now (I got it as a Sunday School prize, which caused a few hassles for the poor bookshop owner in Stockport: it took him months to get hold of!), and it has lots of mistakes in it; but it helped to cement my interest in Welsh placenames. Feel free to copy and paste, by the way. Skinsmoke (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Have changed the contents of the article. Now just need to tackle the title, for which we'll need an Administrator. Nev1 is usually very good at this sort of thing, but before I contact him, do we also need to change Llanfihangel-y-Pennant, home of that Bible bashing girl, back as well? In that particular case, it's not quite so bad, as the disambiguator Llanfihangel-y-pennant, Abergynolwyn was clearly wrong as Abergynolwyn is part of Llanfihangel-y-pennant, not the other way round. It was a bit like having Porthmadog, Borth-y-Gest, though I suppose that should be Borth-y-gest? Skinsmoke (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
PS I've just looked up Llanfihangel-y-Pennant on Enwau Cymru. I got it right!!!!!! It's the other one in Dolbenmaen that's wrong!!!!! Feeling really smug now ;-) Skinsmoke (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Llongyfarchiadau! Pennant is actually a little bit trickier as it could be a reference to a simple geographical feature (pen + nant, rather obviously!) but is more often than not a placename (cf. Pennant Melangell in Powys). The two "big ones" should not be capitalised, strictly speaking, i.e. Betws-y-coed, Pen-y-groes, as coed and [c]roes are common nouns not placenames. Hwyl, Enaidmawr (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your input on your naming issue. As you suggested, I created a section over at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Burmese), and linked to it at a few other relevant talk/project pages. I hope some people will join in the debate, I think this is an important step in making the Burma project more consistent. As for myself, I'm gonna concentrate on doing some article edits. Too much talking, not enough new material from me lately, or so I feel. Looking forward to your contributions to the discussion, cheers. Pim Rijkee (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Negative index metamaterials
On August 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Negative index metamaterials, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thank you for taking the time to welcome me to Wikipedia, and for the links and advice! I have responded to your comments on the Talk: London Oxford Airport page.
The finer points of Wikipedia can seem complex to a beginner. Your good-humoured help is much appreciated. All the best, SkyeWaye (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Skinsmoke - re 'jumping the gun' - why did you change the info regarding Anglesey's accession to the two international Geoparks networks? Membership of the European Geoparks Network automatically gives the Geopark membership of the UNESCO Global network too - following the principles of the Madonie agreement of 2004. Anglesey gained membership of both earlier this year.
cheers
Geopersona (talk) 11:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, that is indeed what it says - though for most intents & purposes GeoMon is now a member of the Global Network; the ratification formalises the process. Should be able to update the text soon to reflect the position after the UNESCO August meeting. Geopersona (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure it's just a formality and may well have been ratified by now as we're nearing the end of August. Must admit I quite enjoyed wandering round the GeoMon website, so thanks for awakening my interest! Incidentally, anything else you could add to the Anglesey page? It's not a particularly great page at the moment! Look forward to the update coming through. Skinsmoke (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
No problems. Note also that the protection of that page has now been lifted, so you can now edit it yourself. Cheers, Chzz ► 17:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:NC
"Let's just say that, as it stands, it will never make it to Good article or Featured article."
LOL!
Born2cycle has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding ((subst:Cookie)) to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with ((subst:munch))!
RFC: Removal of exceptions to "use common names" passage.
This is to inform you that the removal of exceptions to the use of Common Names as the titles of Wikipedia articles from the the Talk:Naming_Conventions policy page, is the subject of a referral for Comment (RfC). This follows recent changes by some editors.
You are being informed as an editor previously involved in discussion of these issues relevant to that policy page. You are invited to comment at this location. Xandar22:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
You all deserve the barnstar. There was great co-operation and negligible vandalism during the time the article was on the Main Page. Mjroots (talk) 05:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Borough moves
I noticed you moved some articles such as Halton (borough) to Borough of Halton. I don't necessarily disagree with these moves, but it is far from consistently applied. Was there a discussion that led to these moves? We were discussing at WP:UKDISTRICTS the possibility of renaming such articles, but didn't come to an agreement. MRSC (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
There was a consensus some considerable time ago at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography that the Borough of Placename, City of Placename, London Borough of Placename and Metropolitan Borough of Placename format was the preferred style, but, as you say, this has not been consistently applied. Strangely, the preferred style for districts is Placename District (why not District of Placename for consistency?). A different style was recently adopted in Wales (and is in the naming conventions}, which is Placename County Borough. I wasn't aware of the recent discussions at WP:UKDISTRICTS but, if a decision is made to confirm the above (or to change it), I do think it needs implementing across the board - it isn't such a massive task, after all: there are only 201 shire districts plus 55 unitary authorities, not all of which would need renaming. The metropolitan boroughs and London boroughs seem to follow the agreed format anyway.
In Scotland, the pattern is to use Placename, with only Falkirk and Stirling deviating from this, using Placename (council area). If any change was proposed there, I would suggest widening the discussion to include something like the Scottish Wikipedians Notice Board or whatever they call it. It probably isn't worth the effort in Northern Ireland, as it looks likely that the whole structure will be changing shortly.
Let me know what's decided as I don't always get time to keep an eye on all the umpteen places these discussions take place! Skinsmoke (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Have just had a look at the discussions at WP:UKDISTRICTS. These appear to have grown out of the long-running arguments about whether to split or merge districts. I do think you need to consider further the naming of whatever articles result. Whilst both Borough of Placename or even Placename Borough (and the same for all the other variations} can be heard or read in normal life, I don't think I have ever, outside Wikipedia, come across Placename (borough). It looks uncomfortable, and during discussions on the Welsh authorities, the format Placename (county borough) proved to be positively hated (as was County Borough of Placename). On balance, I think I would come down on City of Placename (to avoid confusion with the likes of Salt Lake City) and possibly London Borough of Placename (as Placename London Borough may be a little awkward), but Placename Borough, Placename District, Placename Metropolitan Borough, Placename County Borough and Placename Council Area where the simple Placename is inappropriate. Skinsmoke (talk) 01:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Skinsmoke, I though I'd let you know that there is a new discussion open on proposed name modification (Twin towns, Sister cities or both?)on this talk page. Your comments would be very much appreciated -- Marek.69 talk01:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.