Talk:Swarcliffe/Archive 1

Rating

It has now been upgraded to a B-class. Mine's a pint, ta very much.--andreasegde (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Settlements guidelines

Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements might help to get stuff in the right order for GA review. I think the info is (just about) all there; it just might need a rejig.--Harkey (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow, like Wheldrake?--andreasegde (talk) 06:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Repeated links

WP:REPEATLINK specifies that repeated links may/should (not clear which!) be used "where the later occurrence is a long way from the first." In a long article like this, I don't think the links in the lead section should be the only links. I believe that the first occurrence in each section should be linked. I see my changes have been reverted (although my edit summaries explained my rationale) so won't bother trying to help with this any more. PamD (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I thank you.--andreasegde (talk) 06:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Darcy Bruce Wilson estate

The land was purchased by Leeds Council not "taken over". See this site--Harkey (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The Leodis site shows no references for where it gets its information. Wilson died childless.--andreasegde (talk) 06:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Bollards

Off.--andreasegde (talk) 22:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Over-linking

This section was originally titled "Bold, Revert, Discuss"; I have re-titled it to reflect the topic, and have merged a related section that was called "Over-linking" into here. This discussion relates to the possible repetition of some Wikilinks that are in the lede within the politics section. Chzz  ►  11:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, rather than get into an edit war I would like to discuss with other editors the question of multiple links.

I think it is appropriate to link Labour and Leeds East the first time they occur in the Politics section, even though they nmay have been linked earlier in the article. Another editor disagrees and has unlinked them. What do other people think? PamD (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Look at the rules.--andreasegde (talk) 07:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it is appropriate to link them, as that section is so far on from the lede, and because the terms are so critical to "politics"; per WP:REPEATLINK.  Chzz  ►  20:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Would you also think it appropriate to link Denis Healey and George Mudie in that section, even though both are also linked in the lede? PamD (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I would. But, hold on for at least an hour or so - I will drum up some more uninvolved opinions here. Thx,  Chzz  ►  21:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I would say, link the first time in the lead, and if necessary, again for the first time in the body. Linking multiple times in the body is just going to generate reverts from people who have no idea why this particular article is different to what's done (or what is agreed to be done) in every other very large article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Two disclaimers: 1) Chzz asked me here, 2) I not only don't know the MoS very well, but I dislike when people try to cling to it. My opinion, therefore, will be just on how it looks/flows.

The way I treat links in long articles is this: I put the item that would be linked at the very bottom of my screen, and then look up to see if it's linked elsewhere on my screen. If it does appear linked, I don't link it again, but if it dosen't appear linked, and it is the first mention of the name in that level two header section, then I link it. (The theory here is that you shouldn't have to scroll up too much to get a link.) When something is really common and easy to remember, like a city or country name, I don't link it at all, because I don't like articles to become walls of blue text.

On that note, in the politics section the years 1955 and 1992 are linked. In my opinion, linking years in an article is stupid. No nicer way to say it. If someone needs a link in order to search for a year... well... I feel sorry for em. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you actually looked where those date links go? General elections in both cases. That usage is very common in discussions of MPs and their terms of office, certainly in succession boxes etc. PamD (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

A similar disclaimer: Chzz asked to comment. I believe that since the "Politics" section is far into the article it is fair to link to Labour and Leeds East, especially for those unfamiliar with British politics. —Mikemoral♪♫ 21:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The following comments were originally posted in a separate section entitled "Over-linking", I have moved them here to keep the discussion in one place.  Chzz  ►  11:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Avoid linking more than one instance per page.--andreasegde (talk) 12:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• And, as I have pointed out before, WP:REPEATLINK goes on to say: "In general, link only the first occurrence of an item. There are exceptions to this guideline, including these: where the later occurrence is a long way from the first.". Leeds East and Labour in the politics section are prime examples of this exception. PamD (talk) 12:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It is an article about Swarcliffe, and not the Labour Party. If anyone does not know what the Labour Party is, they're not interested, or they don't live in the UK. If they read the Swarcliffe article to find out, they've come to the wrong place.--andreasegde (talk) 12:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Off-topic (WP:TPG)  Chzz  ►  11:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
BTW, I sincerely hope you don't work for Leeds City Council or the Labour Party, or both, as far as this article is concerned.--andreasegde (talk) 12:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC) Who I work for is completely irrelevant - and your remarks, implying some sort of COI, are verging onto personal attack (and so wrong as to be almost funny).PamD (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC) I am concerned about the integrity of the article, and I didn't ask who you worked for. You seem to spend an inordinate amount of time on the politics section, which leads one to wonder, as one does.--andreasegde (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Wonder, away, as long as the article has a sufficient number of links in appropriate places. That something is linked in the lead does not preclude it from being linked elsewhere, in the section to which it most closely relates. PamD (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

There seems general consensus that those repeated links are appropriate in this case - as they are, in the current version - and there's been no further comments here for a week. I'll wait a few more days, and if there's no further discussion needed here, I'll archive this section.  Chzz  ►  18:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Councillors' terms of office

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Terms of office are set by elections, and are listed on councillors' pages (eg http://democracy.leeds.gov.uk/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=177) on the council website. They are not "predictions" in any way. The wording "term of office to 20nn" does not exclude the possibility of anyone dying or retiring, it is just a statement that when they were elected it was for a term up to that year. I really don't see why one editor has such a problem with this. No-one WP:OWNs this article. PamD (talk) 23:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain which edit this disagreement is in relation to? Thanks,  Chzz  ►  20:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I listed the councillors' terms of office in terms of "Joe Bloggs (term of office to 2012)" etc. The other editor claimed that I was forecasting future events. These terms of office are stated on the council's website (except in one case where the council haven't updated after 2011 elections!). I eventually came up with the wording "(elected to serve until 2012)" which has been allowed to remain, although my slight WP:OR in adding 4 years (standard term) to the 2011 results for the third councillor was not allowed so she just has "(elected 2011)" which seems clumsy. The other editor kept insisting that I was predicting the future: I believe it is correct to use the term "term of office" for the period for which someone has been elected. And see below for my further attempts to discuss. PamD (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I see now, thanks. And I think I'll change the below to a L3-heading, so this continuation is clearer...  Chzz  ►  10:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Politics

This ==L2== heading changed to ===L3===, as it is a continuation of the point raised in "Councillors' terms of office.  Chzz  ►  10:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

One determined editor is inclined to believe that he/she knows when the next election will be. This editor does not understand that elections can not be predicted, unless one has a crystal ball.--andreasegde (talk) 23:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone else understand what this means? PamD (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Look at the rules, and understand what 3RR means.--andreasegde (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

That response makes no connection with my question. But it reminds me that you are reverting both my and Harky's changes, and have probably exceeded 3RR by now ("Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. "). But you are also failing to enter into discussion in the way of WP:BRD. You did not comment on my point above about terms of office, but just continued to revert with irrelevant edit summaries. Stating the period of office for which someone is elected is not the same as predicting the dates of future elections (though I can do that: Leeds City Council elections will be on the first Thursday of May in 2012, 2014 and 2015, unless there is a change in the electoral system). PamD (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You have just shot yourself in the foot with this: "unless there is a change in the electoral system". Don't you feel foolish? To make it simpler, I could say I'm going to live until I'm 100, unless there is a change in the state of my health, meaning I might die. Get it now? This is an encyclopaedia.--andreasegde (talk) 23:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Not at all: in the article I am not stating when the next election will be - I merely threw that in on this talk page. I am giving the term of office for which councillors have been elected, as stated on the council's web page. That is a different thing altogether. PamD (talk) 07:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I moved the following comments (marked with --- at top and bottom) from the #Archiving section of this page, to keep the discussion in one section.  Chzz  ►  11:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

---

I think the entire content of this page disproves your first point.--Harkey (talk) 10:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

So did anybody come here first and wait (such a nice word) for agreement? No.--andreasegde (talk) 10:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you just delete this: "Even though political appointments have a fixed time before re-election, they can change. Please do not insert future dates, as they are not encyclopaedic." Yes. Another example of your arrogance. You do not know that GA reviewers do NOT like one-line paragraphs.--andreasegde (talk) 10:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

"Swarcliffe is in the Leeds East parliamentary constituency; since boundary changes—which took effect before the 2010 General Election— this includes Cross Gates..." I had to revert this, because it was very badly formulated. Just read it.--andreasegde (talk) 10:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• It was clumsily formulated because I was trying to preserve as much as possible of your original wording, while removing the misleading implication that Swarcliffe only became part of Leeds East in 2010. I have replaced an improved version of my previous wording. PamD (talk) 12:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

---

I think this matter has now been resolved, and that consensus supports the current version [1] with the phrasing e.g. Suzi Armitage (elected to serve until 2012).

If my assumption is incorrect, and there are further objections, please raise them here. Otherwise, I shall mark this section as 'resolved' in some days.  Chzz  ►  11:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'll archive this thread in a few days, if nobody objects.  Chzz  ►  18:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Archiving

Please do not archive this page (again) while discussions are still current. PamD (talk) 08:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Discussions? What discussions? As this article was previously up for a GAR, it was extremely destructive for a bunch of editors to come steaming in and start editing without at least making a list first that could be talked about and then agreed upon. These actions would have meant a negative GA review, because reviewers don't like any kind of disagreements about an article. Therefore, the article is now off the list.
• Just because anyone is allowed to edit does not mean they have the experience for a GA review. I refer you to Wheldrake as an example, which was started on 9 March 2005. Now let's talk about cats and pigeons.--andreasegde (talk) 10:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion re. politics, not archiving, moved from here to the appropriate section  Chzz  ►  11:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the entire content of this page disproves your first point.--Harkey (talk) 10:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC) So did anybody come here first and wait (such a nice word) for agreement? No.--andreasegde (talk) 10:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC) Did you just delete this: "Even though political appointments have a fixed time before re-election, they can change. Please do not insert future dates, as they are not encyclopaedic." Yes. Another example of your arrogance. You do not know that GA reviewers do NOT like one-line paragraphs.--andreasegde (talk) 10:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC) "Swarcliffe is in the Leeds East parliamentary constituency; since boundary changes—which took effect before the 2010 General Election— this includes Cross Gates..." I had to revert this, because it was very badly formulated. Just read it.--andreasegde (talk) 10:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC) It was clumsily formulated because I was trying to preserve as much as possible of your original wording, while removing the misleading implication that Swarcliffe only became part of Leeds East in 2010. I have replaced an improved version of my previous wording. PamD (talk) 12:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Please don't archive this talk page without seeking agreement here first.

Note, I intend to set up an initial archive, and to only archive completed threads - such as, I'd archive #Rating and #Repeated links, as I believe that wouldn't be controversial.

I also intend to set up catch-all automatic archiving by a bot to archive threads older than 6 months but to leave a minimum of six threads on the page.

I will wait for five days before implementing this, to allow for any objections; I hope this will be constructive.  Chzz  ►  11:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Now done. I'll archive this thread in a few days, if nobody objects.  Chzz  ►  18:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Settlements guidelines

Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements might help to get stuff in the right order for GA review. I think the info is (just about) all there; it just might need a rejig.--Harkey (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow, like Wheldrake?--andreasegde (talk) 06:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

A few points

I've had a look at the first few sections - running out of time - and a few general comments occur:

• Lead is perhaps a bit too long? And the sentence about the woodlands seems to jut out oddly from the flow.
• It's reasonable to link useful terms once per section - not over-linking.
• Conversion of units - need to make sure that output precision matches input precision; leaving it up to the Convert template's default setting (ie not specifying "0" dec places) produces good effects.

Will try and have a look at the rest some time. Good luck. PamD (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a few more from Harkey:

• Maybe the Woodlands and water section could be called Topography and grouped with Climate and Neighbouring districts to give a more coherent Geography section.
• Inline notes in the History section could be converted to ref notes using Template:Ref label.
• The sentence about Leeds in Bloom seems a bit out of place in the Woodlands and water section.

--Harkey (talk) 10:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• This article needs a good copyedit to get rid of numerous "also"s and it has far too many "Swarcliffe"s which makes it very difficult to read. Just a thought, I'll go through it if you like.--J3Mrs (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

"also" is in the article 10 times, and Swarcliffe is mentioned 127 times, in 4,000 words.--andreasegde (talk) 06:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Constituency questions

Tidying up the politics section slightly, I pondered a couple of points:

1. Was Swarcliffe in Leeds East prior to 2010 boundary changes? If so, then the first sentence ("Since boundary changes...") needs to be altered (perhaps to "Swarcliffe is in the Leeds East p.. const.. which, since the boundary changes..... includes [list of places]." If not, then Denis Healey didn't represent Swarcliffe from 1955.
2. And before 1955 (when Leeds East was re-created), was Swarcliffe in Leeds South East? If so, Denis H represented it from 1952.

PamD (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

This article is not about political areas. Leeds East has its own page, unless one works for Leeds City Council.--andreasegde (talk) 11:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

What does this mean, please?

"The land needed for the development of Swarcliffe and its surrounding areas was bought then added to the Leeds area from the neighbouring Tadcaster Rural District, which was bought from the nearby market town of Tadcaster." --Harkey (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

According to this, the Whinmoor land that was "taken into the city from the Tadcaster rural area".--Harkey (talk) 10:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Try using that today, and people will think you are talking about a cat. Copying from a web page is not allowed.--andreasegde (talk) 11:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

non-breaking spaces

I can see nothing in WP:MOSNUM which specifies the use of the non-breaking space to prevent numbers from being the first or last characters on a line. Looking at today's Featured Article HMS Lion (1910), I see no use of this: what's good enough for a Featured Article is good enough for me. I propose that they should be removed throughout this article, as they are not required and only make it more difficult to read the article when editing it. What do other editors think? PamD (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that they make it more difficult to read the article when editing, and should be removed.--Harkey (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-breaking spaces are used to hold together numbers and the following word. I know the MOS says they are advisable but are normally enforced in reviews. I cannot see the problem and would retain them. Keith D (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Keith, where does MOS mention them, I didn't spot it? And they are being used here both before and after numbers, including dates as in "demolished in the[nbsp]1990s,". PamD (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Dates they appear to be using in day first dates between the day and the month now to prevent a break there, though I do not usually place them there. The example you give of before a year is unusual. Keith D (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Try this page.--andreasegde (talk) 07:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I asked for policy. PamD (talk) 07:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

And I note that today's featured article does not use them for dates - see Kylfings#Byzantine_Empire, the first numbers in the piece. I can see that non-breaking spaces are useful when a number is followed by a unit (6 miles - though we'd use {{convert}} there); it may or may not be helpful when it's followed by an entity (93 trees), but it is not useful or desirable for dates, as it just clutters the text seen by editors for no good purpose. PamD (talk) 07:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Try one of the recent FAs such as Cottingley Fairies which shows the use of non-breaking spaces. Keith D (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I've never seen nbsp's used in that manner, and don't consider them necessary or desirable in such cases.  Chzz  ►  20:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

(posting after the 'Try one...' comment, which was inserted above, after my comment)

OK; I do see some in that FA. But, it's not even consistent there; it has e.g. Elsie was 16 years old, contacted Gardner in June 1920 to determine and lots of others without nbsp;'s. I really don't think they're necessary. I realise it's a stylistic concern, and there is no hard-and-fast rule - so, we just need to come to some consensus/agreement here. Personally, I'm not really bothered either way, and I'd be just as happy to leave it, as the status quo.  Chzz  ►  20:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Bugger me (can that be regarded as an insult to myself?)

I have just realised, having moved from GA "Music" articles to the vista of Geography, Places, Car parks, Places of Special Interest, and Things that I Like to Stare at, that I have made the most collosal mistake. You people like short sentences that look like bus/train timetables, with lots of white space in-between, so you can adjust your bi-focals. Oh, bugger. I truly apologise. :))--andreasegde (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

There's some nice FA's on places; I don't know if you've looked over any - but they're good for ideas. I personally found Birchington-on-Sea and Stretford to be decent examples, but I don't know if you'd think those were somewhat choppy too?  Chzz  ►  21:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

What, like this?: "A purpose-built iron and glass building was constructed at a cost of £38,000 to house the 16,000 exhibits. The gardens were also chosen as a site for the Royal Jubilee Exhibition of 1887, celebrating Queen Victoria's 50-year reign. The exhibition ran for more than six months and was attended by more than 4.75 million visitors. The gardens were converted into an entertainment resort in 1907, and hosted the first speedway meeting in Greater Manchester on 16 June 1928. There was also greyhound racing from 1930, and an athletics track." Riveting.--andreasegde (talk) 06:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I merely suggested that it can help to look at featured articles about related topics. I am not suggesting that any article is perfect. If you wish to make some constructive criticism regarding that prose, your comments belong on Talk:Stretford, not here. Sarcasm and rhetoric are not helping us work to improve this article. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  11:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Closing vs. disbanding

Per this edit and the accompanying edit summary...
The definition of "disband" from various dictionaries: to break up as an organization, to cease to function as a group. If the church does not function as a separate corporate entity, if it has been dissolved as a congregation then yes, I would consider it to be disbanded. The "Stanks Methodist Church" building near Swarcliffe still exists, but does the congregation who worshipped there and who were collectively known as "Stanks Methodist Church (Richmond Hill)" still exist? I'm asking because the building was closed in 2007 and the congregation was dissolved at that time to go join with "others to form stronger churches". When I was using the term 'disbanded', I was thinking of this TampaBay.Com/St. Petersburg Times (FL) article about another Methodist Church that was closed/disbanded here "is being disbanded by the Florida United Methodist". From the Leeds Methodist Church Synod Agenda "The DPC was asked to agree that the following churches should cease to meet and close: (...) Stanks, Richmond Hill (16/04)" and "The congregations were commended for their courageous decisions that their work in that place was complete and the Lord’s work could more usefully go forward as they joined together with others to form stronger churches." Not sure what difference there is between using the terms "disbanded" or "closed", whatever term is used the entity known as "Stanks Methodist Church" is no more. Shearonink (talk) 03:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I was talking about how one could disband a building.--andreasegde (talk) 06:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh ok, thanks for your explanation. I was referring to the meaning of "church" as a congregation of people, not as the building they use. Shearonink (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Amazing

From this: "Swarcliffe Baptist Church is on Swarcliffe Drive, opposite the Swarcliffe Primary School and Nursery. Due to overcrowding in the past, it was often used as an extra classroom by the school." To this: "Swarcliffe Baptist Church on Swarcliffe Drive, opposite Swarcliffe Primary School and Nursery, was used as an extra classroom when the school suffered from overcrowding." Apart from sounding like someone foaming at the mouth, I never knew it was called Swarcliffe Baptist Church on Swarcliffe Drive.--andreasegde (talk) 08:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Stanks Methodist Church

I have re-titled this section, which was previously entitled "Rubbish"  Chzz  ►  11:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

This was the original: "Although not included in the Swarcliffe area, Stanks Methodist Church (on the south side of Barwick Road), was closed in 2007."

This is a supposed correction: "Stanks Methodist Church, which was on the south side of Barwick Road just outside the Swarcliffe area, was closed in 2007."

The problem is that the church building is still there. Rubbish.--andreasegde (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• In that case, omit "which was" (though it could probably also be argued that the church is not still there, as the church is the organisation rather than the building). Your version implies that the church was closed despite not being in Swarcliffe - as if there was a total purge on Methodism in Swarcliffe: that's the effect of "Although". You have also removed the name of the church, which was Stanks Methodist Church.

How about "Until 2007 Stanks Methodist Church was on the south side of Barwick Road, just outside the Swarcliffe area."? (Optionally followed by "The building is now.... [empty / used as ....] " if you know its current status.) PamD (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Can we please call it Stanks Methodist Church, rather than "A" Methodist Church? PamD (talk) 21:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, we have two refs. The first [2] does not actually seem to mention "Stanks" - I'm not entirely sure what it is referencing. Is it incorrect?

The second does, indeed, call it Stanks Methodist Church [3]. And the current version of the article reads;

• Stanks Methodist Church, on the south side of Barwick Road, opened on 23 February 1869, by Primitive Methodists, but the building was closed and the congregation disbanded in 2007.

So - is this matter resolved?  Chzz  ►  11:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Woodlands and water

During the English Civil War, the Royalist army defeated the Parliamentarians under Sir Thomas Fairfax at the Battle of Seacroft Moor in 1643 (south of York Road: Sledmere Lane, Stanks Drive, and Sherburn Road). The ensuing massacre of the Parliamentarians is said to have been of such magnitude that the beck ran crimson with blood. This story about the Cock Beck running red/crimson is also said to have happened at the Battle of Winwaed and the Battle of Towton.(Try a Google search) The ref does not mention it at all. --Harkey (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Then roll up your sleeves and fix it. Can I offer help about how to formulate references?--andreasegde (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I brought the matter here to discuss before I made an edit. Please, can you explain what you mean about references? --Harkey (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

That's what I mean. Can you find one, and do you want help to format the reference for inclusion in the article? If you already know how to do that, it would be great if you could find a reference.--andreasegde (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes,please. Can you tell me how to format a Google search as a ref. I usually use a Firefox add on called Cite4Wiki, which saves a lot of time. It produced this.

(I usually delete the template that produces the Author missing note.) Would it be acceptable to use that as evidence? Is that search unique and stable enough to use? --Harkey (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Good grief, I thank you for asking for help—it's so unusual these days. Anyway, to format a reference really well, you should look at my page, because I'll put it on there (if you click on "Edit"). Just copy the whole bit. You don't have to fill in everything, but I'll put some examples in to show you the way. Let me know if it's confusing in any way. OK, here goes...

Thank you. Now, what about the acceptability of a Google search as a ref? Is it WP:OR or would it be acceptable because anyone can replicate it?--Harkey (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

No, a Google search isn't an appropriate source, for several reasons; partly, because there is no way to predict what the results will be later. A good reference would be a book, e.g. this one, or a newspaper article.

There's lots of ways to format references. I'll write more about that on your own user talk page.  Chzz  ►  23:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Edits

1: "Stanks Methodist Church, on the south side of Barwick Road, was opened on 23 February 1869"...

2: "Stanks Methodist Church, on the south side of Barwick Road, opened on 23 February 1869"... Verb, semi-colon, anyone?

1: "St. Gregory's Catholic Primary School was built on Stanks Gardens to accommodate the overflow of children from St Theresa's Primary School in Cross Gates ... it was moved to the former St. Kevin's on Barwick Road."

2: "St. Gregory's Catholic Primary School was built on Stanks Gardens to accommodate the overflow of children from St Theresa's Primary School in Cross Gates ... the school moved to the former St. Kevin's school premises on Barwick Road." The school grew legs? Marvellous.

1: "Swarcliffe School, on Swarcliffe Drive, used to consist of an infants' section ... the junior section was demolished in the 2000s, and renamed Swarcliffe Primary School and Nursery.

2: "Swarcliffe School, on Swarcliffe Drive, was an infant [it still exists] and junior school ... the junior section [meaning the bit that was young?] was demolished in the 2000s, and the school renamed Swarcliffe Primary School and Nursery". It was a very small infant school [meaning not very big], and very junior school [meaning it wasn't adult?]. Was it a school school? It gets better all the time, and these are examples of the last three edits.--andreasegde (talk) 20:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

This is like watching your local council digging up the same street five times in a week. Even though it goes against every single thing I have learned here, I think I'm beginning to enjoy it, in a strange way. Laurel and Hardy, anyone? :))--andreasegde (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

1. "He died at Seacroft Hall in 1931, having previously been an M.A., Barrister at Law, Justice of the peace, and a Captain in the Yorkshire Hussars."

2. "He was an M.A., Barrister at Law, Justice of the peace, and a Captain in the Yorkshire Hussars and died at Seacroft Hall in 1931." Are we talking bus timetables here?--andreasegde (talk) 21:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• I don't understand the obsession with bus time-tables, but I do think that version 2 is an improvement: "having previously been" contributes nothing. Similarly, all the above struck me as improvements when I looked at the diffs, before seeing this talk page. Opinions on English usage clearly vary. PamD (talk) 22:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Demography

Swarcliffe appears to be a Leeds 041 (Middle Layer Super Output Area). The 2001 statistics will be way out of date, but the others could be useful to expand the "Demography" section. What do editors think will be most relevant? I'll try, don't hold your breath, to make some tables.--Harkey (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Problematic

"In November 655 AD [NB 1] the Battle of the Winwaed ..." There is no comma after 655 AD.

"In a boundary change on 1 April 1937". In a boundary change?

"Although the Swarcliffe estate was built in the 1950s, and Whinmoor estate in the 1960s". How can it be the Swarcliffe estate, but not the Whinmoor estate?

"Since the boundary changes which took effect before the 2010 General Election, the..." Comma needed.

"Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) for Yorkshire and the Humber European Parliament constituency (which includes Swarcliffe) since". Commas after parentheses. Definitive article needed for the constituency.

Hold on... "Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) for Yorkshire and the Humber European Parliament constituency (which includes Swarcliffe) since the European Parliament election, 2009 are Godfrey Bloom". Where does one take a breath?

Why is Stanks in bold (in the Geography section), after it is has been mentioned numerous times?

"The area is underlain by coal measures, carboniferous rocks of shale, mudstone and sandstone with thin seat earths and coal seams. All these rocks have a general dip to the south and south-east." Paragraphs of one sentence are frowned upon.

"The Cock Beck runs in a southerly direction past Swarcliffe and Stanks' eastern borders, and joins the River Wharfe". The Cock Beck joins the River Wharfe directly after it leaves Swarcliffe and Stanks' eastern borders?

Why is the Cock Beck not mentioned in the lead?

"was built in the 1950s, Whinmoor housing estate was built".

"In 2009, the population of Swarcliffe", which is followed by, "In the 2001 census Swarcliffe was recorded". The dates are not in order, and there is a comma missing.

"six Hindus and six Jews." Of the Jewish faith, maybe? Is there a race called the Hindus, or people that follow the Hindu religion? It's about a religion, and not a race. "eleven Pakistani"? Would you say "eleven English"?

So substantially improved. I don't understand why you think some of the above are errors, c'est la vie.--J3Mrs (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

"So substantially improved". What does that mean? I didn't change anything, and I wonder why you think they are not errors. If you don't think they are errors then I am say without the shadow of the doubts that somehow one should inclined to believe even if one does not want to that something are amiss no?

If you "don't understand why you think some of the above are errors", then you really need to think about it.--andreasegde (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I have copyedited some out, but as for the rest, I have no idea why you consider them errors.--J3Mrs (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I am truly shocked. I really don't know what to say, because it's basic grammar. Speechless.--andreasegde (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Since you're seeing so many errors, feel free to correct them all. Shearonink (talk) 02:48, 17 August 2011

The reason I'm mentioning the mistakes here is to get certain editors to actually agree they are mistakes. If you read some of the above comments, it seems they do not. What should one do?--andreasegde (talk) 06:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I remind participants that they should comment on content not users. Thanks. 03:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC) (Unsigned comment by  Chzz  ► )

More

"In the mid-1800s, Isaac Chippindale, who lived in the windmill, started the Scholes Brick and Tile Works". The reference says nothing about him living in the windmill.

"St. Gregory's Roman Catholic Church, on Swarcliffe Drive, formally, St. Gregory the Great Church". Formally what? Called, built as, or before it was built?

"The first church on the site". Was there a building or a church there before?--andreasegde (talk) 22:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

"In 1874, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners published a report which noted that two new parishes would be delineated by..." Which parishes?

The sentence continues..."said new parish of Seacroft from the new parish of Manston"--Harkey (talk) 09:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

"Whinmoor estate..." This is a recurring problem. If it is mentioned as "Swarcliffe estate", it must be "the Swarcliffe estate". It can be referred to as Swarcliffe, but only without the word "estate". This is also true of Whinmoor/the Whinmoor estate.

"Fed by the Grimes Dyke, from Whinmoor north of York Road..." This originally said "Grimes Dyke stream". Why the change? It now reads as if the Cock Beck is fed by Grimes Dyke Primary School.

"Stanks Parade on Stanks Avenue has a row of shops which includes a newsagent..." Commas are missing, as the parade of shops is not called "Stanks Parade on Stanks Avenue".

"the parish of Seacroft Team Ministry, a group of (Anglican)". A semicolon is needed after "Seacroft Team Ministry".

"In a 2008 census, it was stated that 1,419 children lived in the Swarcliffe area." This should be "children were living in the". It's a case of Past Continuous as opposed to Past Simple. They were living in the area at the time of the census. Note: it did say that previously, but was changed.

"Swarcliffe.[NB 4].[24]". Fairly obvious.

"Sherburn Court, a high-rise block at the northern end of the estate underwent refurbishment, including..." Comma needed, or the sentence needs to be reconstructed.

"In 2006, a £100 million scheme to refurbish the area's housing was started,[37] funded by a public-private partnership scheme." Semicolon needed, or "which was" added.

"This Private finance initiative, operating as Yorkshire Transformations, is a partnership..." It should be made clear at the outset that Yorkshire Transformations is a name.

"In the late 2000s, Persimmon Homes built St Gregory's, seventy-three private houses..." Semicolon needed after St Gregory's, or stating the fact that Persimmon Homes built the homes and the area was named St Gregory's.

"The housing estate consisted of two and three-bedroomed semi-detached houses and a number of three-storey blocks containing 12 flats or more but some have been demolished." Is a pause possible? "The housing estate consisted of..." Does it no longer exist?

"In 1953, The Civil Engineer reported that Leeds City Council paid Myton Ltd., based in Kingston upon Hull, £227,232, 'for the erection of 172 dwellings on the Swarcliffe (Seacroft) Estate'." A surfeit of commas.

"St. Gregory the Great Church[69][70] is in the Roman Catholic Diocese..." Comma needed before the references, or the references should be moved.

"The toll house was situated north of a cottage and a 19th-century granite-built windmill..." How far north? This was "just to the north of a cottage", but could be 145 yards (133 m), as that was the approximate distance.

"Justice of the peace, and a captain in the Yorkshire Hussars and died at Seacroft Hall in 1936." A rather abrupt death.

--andreasegde (talk) 07:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a quote from an Amazon review of Eats, Shoots and Leaves : "Lynne Truss tells us of her dealings with an elderly charity shop worker who, on being told by the author about her incorrect punctuation of a window sign, told her to "bugger off, get a life and mind your own business".

Three cheers for the lady in the charity shop... "--85.211.85.196 (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Howdy. How's the weather in Market Rasen? :))--andreasegde (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

In the light of this: "St. Gregory's Roman Catholic Church, on Swarcliffe Drive, formally, St. Gregory the Great Church". Formally what? Called, built as, or before it was built? I changed the word to formerly, but I originally took it to mean formal rather than former.--Harkey (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Lists of "errors"

I have no intention of going through the list of "errors" although have corrected some minor errors and omissions in the text.--J3Mrs (talk) 09:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

That will just not do, and it is highly unhelpful for you to take that attitude. If this was a GAR, this article would fail.--andreasegde (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Street names

Wikipedia is not a directory and the over use of street names is unnecessary and makes it difficult to read and sometimes difficult to edit. I have removed some, more need removing.--J3Mrs (talk) 09:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Then what is the point of putting the names of anything in, if one has no idea where they are?--andreasegde (talk) 12:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

And the list goes on

"Swarcliffe was developed by building two and three-bedroomed". It should be "was developed by the building of two and three-bedroomed..."

"demolished in the 1990s and the site". Please see WP:Dates, about commas.

"operating as Yorkshire Transformations, a partnership betweeen". Semicolon needed after Yorkshire Transformations.

"Stanks Methodist Church opened on 23 February 1869, by Primitive Methodists, but the building was closed and the congregation disbanded in 2007." There is now no way of knowing where this church was, or is. The structure of the sentence is also very awkward.

"Great Swarcliffe Wood and Little Swarcliffe Wood, lie within the boundaries of the estate" An obvious comma mistake, and the sentence has no full stop.

"Labour Party MP for Leeds East constituency..." This should be "for the Leeds East constituency".

"took place in the area around Whinmoor, Cock Beck and Swarcliffe". The battle took place in the areas of Swarcliffe and Whinmoor, not around them. The Cock Beck is not an area, it is a stream.

"and Barwick Road to the south, with Cock Beck and Scholes to the east." It is called the Cock Beck, as one would never say I followed "River Wharfe".

"although little evidence survives". This is not what is in the reference. It says that experts disagree about the time of the battle.

"the area contained Winmore Lodge, named Winn Moor Lodge in 1893..." It was renamed, which is entirely different.

"Hill Top, Spikeland Nook, a parochial school on Stanks Lane South/Barwick Road, which was replaced by Windsor Terrace before 1892, and Swarcliffe Farm." The word "and" is missing, because it now seems that Spikeland Nook was a parochial school, which it was not.

"In 1886, it was owned by Colonel Frederick Trench-Gascoigne..." This is ambiguous, because it is not clear if it is referring to the area or the toll house.

"The army of the Christian king, Oswiu of Bernicia, defeated the pagan army of King Penda of Mercia, although little evidence survives. A road to the south of Swarcliffe was named Penda's Way." 1: When was this road named? 2: The name of road (correct or not), is Pendas Way.

"is a district of Leeds, West Yorkshire, England." This should be "a district of Leeds, in West Yorkshire, England."

"Built in 1966, and part of the Whinmoor estate, six of seven fifteen-storey high-rise blocks were demolished in 2006." This does not make it clear that the boundary was later changed.

"The battle between the army of the Christian king, Oswiu of Bernicia and the pagan army of King Penda of Mercia took place in 655 AD according to Bede," Commas are obviously needed.

"at the Battle of Seacroft Moor, (south of York Road..." No comma needed before parenthesis.

"An area to the south of Swarcliffe is named Pendas Fields." Pendas Fields has been added, but the road that was built in the 1950s—Pendas Way, which was there long before Pendas Fields—has been deleted.

"The area is underlain by coal measures, carboniferous rocks of shale, mudstone and sandstone with thin seat earths and coal seams. All these rocks have a general dip to the south and south-east.[52]" The referenced article shows a very large area, encompassing Bradford and Wakefield. This is misleading.

"The Leeds to Wetherby Railway, passed over the turnpike and had a station at Scholes." This is very wrong. The railway passed over Barwick Road in Stanks, and then went to Scholes. After that it went under the York Road, but by then was in the area of Scholes.

Reference [88] is a dead link. "Turnpikes.org"

This is the best yet: "In 1886, it was owned by Colonel Frederick Trench-Gascoigne..." This was added by the editor in question.

"Lord Goring's" This is not formatted properly. It should be " Lord Goring's".

--andreasegde (talk) 12:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• This definately dates from when User:Andreasegde was the sole editor.--J3Mrs (talk) 17:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I put this article up for a GAR, and I expected the reviewer to find mistakes, because they always do. Saying I made a mistake when you are creating so many is very silly, IMHO. I have asked for help in this matter, as you are ignoring any advice given.--andreasegde (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is, the article was nowhere near a GA and is now much improved, mistakes get corrected. Perhaps you'll benefit from mediation.--J3Mrs (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Please desist from removing edits from this page it is not your user page.--J3Mrs (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? Could you please point out when I did this?--andreasegde (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's one.--J3Mrs (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I altered my own edit. Are you being serious? Maybe not.--andreasegde (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for "neutral" opinions

If any editor thinks that my complaints about basic syntax, grammar and basic style are wrong, I invite them to state their opinion. The editor who is constantly changing this article is refusing to accept that they are.--andreasegde (talk) 20:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

{{3O}} 3O request withdrawn, having now seen below that one of the parties in the dispute has filed a medcab request; see below  Chzz  ►  05:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Why I requested a third opinion

• Recently, J3Mrs (talk · contribs) has been editing this article, particularly with regards to 'copy-edit' (grammar, prose clarity, and so forth). Another editor, Andreasegde (talk · contribs), does not agree with many of these edits - as shown in sections above, #Edits, #Problematic, #More, #And the list goes on. J3Mrs has indicated that many of those criticisms are not valid.

• I believe a third-party might be able to resolve this, in the interests of improving the article.  Chzz  ►  21:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I thank you, but a request has already been made on this page. Having said that, any help at all would be much appreciated.--andreasegde (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah; in that case, I'll remove the 3O request. Best to try one form of resolution at a time.  Chzz  ►  05:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Copying from web pages

"The area is underlain by coal measures, carboniferous rocks of shale, mudstone and sandstone with thin seat earths and coal seams. All these rocks have a general dip to the south and south-east."

From the web page: "with thin seat earths and coals. All these rocks have a general dip to the south and south-east."--andreasegde (talk) 12:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I see this has been fixed. It would be terribly kind of editors to place {{done}} after it. This would show that they are actually collaborating, and not just ignoring mistakes.--andreasegde (talk) 10:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

style etc

I'm away from my PC a week and can't comment in detail on phoneon train but in general j3mrs seems to write more clearly or correctly than her opponent

No "the" needed for LeedsCity Council or Leeds East.

And the church is formally, ie officially, ... the Great.

Couldn't work out how to add wikibreak message to my talkpage from phone.PamD 16:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the word "opponent" is needed at all, as this is not a boxing match. As your good self and the above editor were involved in a complaint about me recently, I do not see your opinion as being neutral. I was hoping for editors who are not connected with this article to comment.--andreasegde (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, "critic" would have been a more appropriate word to use. PamD 07:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I have made no complaint about User:Andreasegde who I do not consider to be an opponent. I have chosen to ignore his lists as I find them confusing and unhelpful. If he wants to write lists and complain about me that his prerogative but it doesn't mean I have to join in the drama.--J3Mrs (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It was I who complained about User:Andreasegde. User J3Mrs took no part in the complaint.--Harkey (talk) 17:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

You (J3Mrs) should look at WP:OWN, because saying "I have chosen to ignore his lists as I find them confusing and unhelpful", confirms that you do not understand why you are making mistakes, and are wilfully ignoring any offer of help.--andreasegde (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I repeat, I have never complained about User:Andreasegde, and don't understand why it's a contradiction.--J3Mrs (talk) 17:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

That was my mistake, although I did wonder why you would want to look in my sandbox.--andreasegde (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Shops and public houses is far too local

This section is far too local and mentions much that is not notable.--J3Mrs (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course they're local; they're in Swarcliffe. If you take out the shops and public houses, you might as well just delete the whole section. That would leave any future reader with the distinct impression that Swarcliffe has a fire station and a couple of churches.--andreasegde (talk) 18:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I do agree that "Bubbly's News and Booze" is a little too familiar, but writing "a newsagent's and alcohol shop" (no, it could never be a "store"), would be going too far in the opposite direction. --andreasegde (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Would "newsagent and off-licence" be more appropriate?--Harkey (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes very appropriate.--J3Mrs (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

And there I was thinking that there could be actual collaboration here, but J3Mrs is doing that WP:OWN thing again. BTW, Bubbly's is not an off-licence, as it has normal opening hours.--andreasegde (talk) 18:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

How would you describe it, please?--Harkey (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

You have hit the nail on the head, as they say. Maybe just a newsagent's, as the Food King market also sells alcohol. That's the next problem; the Food King is a small supermarket, but opens until 9 or 10 at night, which would make it an off-licence as well. Things were a lot simpler in the past. :))--andreasegde (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

If it sells drink to be consumed off the premises it's an off licence--J3Mrs (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Supermarkets sell alcohol, but they're not off-licences.--andreasegde (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

From Wikipedia: "In the United Kingdom, the "off-licence" status of a shop could once be used as a device to circumvent restrictive trading laws, particularly those concerning Sunday trading. Depending on local by-laws, shops might be either required to close at 12:00 once a week, or else not be allowed to trade in the evening. Shops with an off-licence made their hours similar to those of public houses, opening during lunch hours and from early evening to the mandatory closing time, usually 22:30 or 23:00."--andreasegde (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

They must have licence to sell alcohol off the premises, though. So "off licence" is a convenient, and well understood, way to describe such outlets.--Harkey (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Please use the correct indents when replying (::::::), because it gets confusing. Bubbly's is not an "off-licence" (the correct spelling), but the Food King is, but is also a mini-market, as they say. It is open all day, and in the evening.--andreasegde (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

This polemic is a tiresome waste of time and energy. Please, say how you would like to proceed.--Harkey (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to collaborate. Having J3Mrs go ahead and make changes without consent is very destructive. If that's the way the editor wants it, then we will have to get into an edit war, which will undoubtedly draw attention from an Admin. The sooner, the better, in my opinion.--andreasegde (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

How would you like to proceed, please?--Harkey (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

As three or four editors are interested in this article, there will always be a problem, unless they work together, and agree. This is like painting a living room, when a number of interior designers are involved. I really love working on articles when editors work together, and I have had a lot of experience with GA articles. I desire collaboration, and agreement. So far, I have experienced hostility, which doesn't make me feel good, and is definitely not good for Wikipedia. There has to be a consensus. Please read this.--andreasegde (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

On this article, how would you like to proceed? What is the first step towards "collaboration and agreement", please?--Harkey (talk) 21:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

1: Every single one of the problems I have stated above have to be corrected; they are basic mistakes, and a GA reviewer will spot them. 2: Before any major changes are made in the future, there has to be a consensus on this page. 3: If there is a disagreement, it must be talked about on this page, and no single editor should just go ahead and make changes, because they think they are right. 4: All these points are defined by Wikipedia policy.--andreasegde (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

(reset indent) Re: Bubbly's is not an "off-licence", above. The ref which has been used says it is an off-licence. See--Harkey (talk) 09:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It has been changed. The only way articles improve is by being bold and changing what's wrong.--J3Mrs (talk) 09:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Which is taking WP:BOLD to mean the bull can do whatever he likes in the china shop.--andreasegde (talk) 10:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk page revisions

Please note that a lot of historical comments from this talk page have been amended; see e.g. [4]].  Chzz  ►  03:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I have asked that edits not be removed from this page already.--J3Mrs (talk) 08:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

You asked me to stop removing my own edit, which was very perplexing.--andreasegde (talk) 10:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Removing or revising your own edits, except for small typos, when others have already responded, can make other peoples contributions to a discussion appear inappropriate, especially when the discussion is viewed retrospectively.--Harkey (talk) 10:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Very right.--andreasegde (talk) 11:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I asked the same thing, and tried to explain why [5]. Andreasegde, even if you do not understand why it is a problem, please abide by guidelines, and stop removing things on this page. See WP:REDACT.  Chzz  ►  14:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Reintroduction of non-encyclopedic content

The article is now more encyclopedic. If an editor wants to introduce local non-encyclopedic content perhaps the editor should seek consensus here.--J3Mrs (talk) 08:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It's laughable that you have the nerve to talk about consensus here, when you have been abusing it for so long. "Seek consensus here"? We both know what that now entails, do we not?--andreasegde (talk) 10:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Pretty please

It would be most terribly kind of editors to place {{done}} after they have corrected one of the mistakes listed above.--andreasegde (talk) 10:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Could an editor correct "Great Swarcliffe Wood and Little Swarcliffe Wood, lie within the boundaries of the estate ", as it does not need a comma, but does need a full stop. I say this because it's in the lead.--andreasegde (talk) 11:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

This has been corrected, but, as I expected, no {{done}} tag has been placed here. How sad.--andreasegde (talk) 03:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Warnings

The warnings I have been given are increasing, and now for the slightest fault. I wonder if any other editor on this article has been given any warning at all? I repeat, any warning at all? Of course, I could be wrong, and I would love to be proven wrong. Any chance of that? :))--andreasegde (talk) 03:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The lead

"Swarcliffe, originally the Swarcliffe Estate, is a district of Leeds, West Yorkshire, England. It is 4.9 miles (8 km) east of Leeds city centre, and within the LS14 Leeds postcode area. In 2009, the population of Swarcliffe and Stanks was 6,751, of which 4,544 were considered to be "hard-pressed", or experiencing financial difficulty."

Marvellous.--andreasegde (talk) 04:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The changes now taking place are actually making me laugh. Inept is not the word. BTW, before I get another warning, I am complaining about the quality of this article. The editors that are making these mistakes have to learn how to use the Preview button. It really does have benefits.--andreasegde (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Only Whinmoor was in the Tadcaster Rural District

My reading of [6] and [7] gives me the impression that Seacroft and Swarcliffe were the corporation's housing estates within the city and a new estate, Whinmoor, was on land taken in from Tadcaster rural district.--J3Mrs (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

This is where a comma defines the meaning. Read the refs, and put an imaginary comma after "Swarcliffe". There isn't one now, but it completely changes the meaning if you do.--andreasegde (talk) 09:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

History

"The Leeds to Halton Dial road was turnpiked in 1751 and tolls were collected at the toll house on York Road. This road is the A64 Leeds to York road. The Leeds to Wetherby Railway had a station at Scholes and passed under the turnpike to the northeast. The line was built by the North Eastern Railway and ran past the eastern border of Swarcliffe and Stanks. It opened on 1 May 1876 and closed in 1964.Services were withdrawn as part of the Beeching Axe; an informal name for the British Government's attempt to reduce the cost of running British Railways in the 1960s."

This is history. Could it be moved to the History section?--Harkey (talk) 11:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Might as well, a lot of the history section is about the area generally.--J3Mrs (talk) 11:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Grimes Dyke - Grimes Dike

One mention of Grimes Dike is misleading. Just because one council report (very possibly), misspelt it, it does not change the fact there is a school with the correct spelling just south of it. To have one instance of "Dike" is obtuse, and confusing. A report once said that the Swarcliffe plantation was called "Swarcliff". Please stop changing the correct spelling of Dyke.--andreasegde (talk) 00:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I have also changed the description to this: "Fed by the small Grimes Dyke stream, from north of York Road", because it is barely a stream at all. Look at any map. If you visited the area, you would be hard-pressed to actually find it.--andreasegde (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW, "Grimes Dike" - 164 Google results. "Grimes Dyke" - 89,200 Google results.--andreasegde (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The stream is the Grimes Dike and was there before the school or Google.--J3Mrs (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Then you can discount 99 percent of this article, because it was all found on Google. --andreasegde (talk) 07:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

This page gives two versions in the same paragraph: "Executive Board report on Housing Appeals - implications of the Secretary of State's decision relating to land at Grimes Dyke, East Leeds... 22 June 2011 setting out the current housing land position following a number of lost appeals and particularly in the context of the Grimes Dike appeal outcome." If the city council get it wrong/right, then it has to be explained that there are different spellings of the name.

Books: The old kingdom of Elmet: York and the Ainsty district: a descriptive sketch of the history, antiquities, legendary lore, picturesque feature, and rare architecture, by Edmund Bogg (1902): "The first object of interest on Whinmoor is Grimes Dyke, a deep picturesque hollow in the bend of the beck, near to where it crosses the Leeds and York highroad.".

Journal: Volumes 10-11 English Place-Name Society (1977) "townships to the east of Leeds.35 These names follow the line of an earthwork which for much of its course had become so ... A stream flowing some 3j miles to the north of this is known as Grimes Dyke, the name presumably having been ..."

The search for "Grimes Dyke/Dike Leeds" in books, resulted in "Grimes Dyke", but also "Grimes-dike", "Grimes Dike", "Grime's Dike", "Grims Ditch", and "Grimesdike". Sort that lot out.--andreasegde (talk) 08:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

A footnote can be used to explain the discrepancies.--Harkey (talk) 08:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

A good idea.--andreasegde (talk) 16:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Langbar Towers

"Langbar Towers, next to a shopping centre..." Could someone please tell me about this shopping centre? There was a parade of thee or four shops (already mentioned in the article), but no centre. If there is no reply this will be removed.--andreasegde (talk) 10:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, to call it a shopping centre would be overstating its size greatly. Mtaylor848 (talk) 13:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It's what the ref says but I will change it to parade.--J3Mrs (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I thank you.--andreasegde (talk) 08:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sport?

Are there any sports teams in the area? All I can find is the Whinmoor Warriors.--Harkey (talk) 11:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

On the same page there are also links for the "Whinmoor Ladies", and the "Open Age" teams.

I found a link for the Swarcliffe "Leeds5s" which seem be a professional five-a-side team, in the Thursday Open League, Division 1. I don't know if they are connected to the "Famous Fives" League, which was started in 2004.

Swarcliffe Working Mens' Club plays in the Leeds Red Triangle Football League.

Swarcliffe Working Mens' Club is in the B Division of the Leeds Billiards and Snooker Organisation, as of 28 September 2010.

Swarcliffe WMC also takes part in the Angling Club contests.

"16 March 2010: A young boxer from Swarcliffe, Leeds, will fight in the CYP National Championships". It goes on: "The Corpus Christi schoolboy is continuing a proud family history as uncle Michael Daniel won a national title in 1974. Jack's dad, Paul, boxed for England in the 1980s". This could go in "Inhabitants", or maybe not.--andreasegde (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Great stuff!--Harkey (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--andreasegde (talk) 20:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"The year 2010 has already been a special one for Swarcliffe's Graham Mattison and could get even better as the heavyweight power lifter is travelling to Finland in November to represent Great Britain and compete in the World Championships. It has already been a prestigious year for the Yorkshireman after finishing first in the British Championships in March, becoming Northern Ireland champion 2010, winning the British finals by some distance and achieving second place in the British Bench Press competition."--andreasegde (talk) 11:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

Link 90 is a dead link - "List of Turnpike Trusts". Turnpikes.org. Retrieved 19 August 2011.--andreasegde (talk) 08:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems now to be link 11 (till next changes) and works OK - though listed as Tadcaster and Halton Dial, not Leeds. PamD 18:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Try this page to check the whole article (if you don't know already). I've just checked it, and the links are fine--andreasegde (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yorkshire Transformations

"We also hope to provide opportunites[sic] for health and fitness activities for the whole community; for example, making use of Cock Beck for jogging or walking as well as for nature conservation. The large green spaces at the edge of the estate will be treated with swathes of semi natural woodland planting creating a woodland buffer to the busy highways. And for the residents of Sherburn Court, a private garden so they can relax out of doors" See. I hope the joggers have good wellies!--Harkey (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

"We want to green up Swarcliffe"? Who writes this stuff? "The opportunity for new tenants to rent furniture and household appliances..." Is this the 1950s all over again?--andreasegde (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Winwaed

"The actual site of the Battle of the Winwaed is unknown, but conjectured to be one of four sites." Not having been mentioned in the lead, this introduction to the "History" section is very confusing.--andreasegde (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Done.--andreasegde (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Much clearer, now.--Harkey (talk) 09:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)