User talk:MRSC/Archive 7

Category:St Helens, Merseyside

Hi, and a belated Happy New Year. Can you pop over there and see how the cat has now been introduced. I don't see the need for a note. --Regan123 02:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'll fix it when 3RR ends. Regan123 11:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

80.192.242.187

Hi MRSC. The above mentioned user has removed the sock puppet warning from that page. He's also gone and reverted a large number of pages to his usual nonesense. Of course we can keep reverting but should we consider taking it further? Thanks Galloglass 11:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, will post on the boards. I have not quite decided yet if he either is just playing this for laughs, which is most probable, that he's is not very bright or that he's very young. Either way a long ban seems to be the only way forward. Galloglass 13:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

As I've posted on his talk page, I'm the one he went off on and vandalized my talk page. My dispute with him is certainly not over. But I have closely examined both his contributions and those of Irate, and I think it almost impossible that they are the same person. The sock puppet warning is not needed. Jemmy's situation here on Wikipedia is going to have to rest, for better or worse, on his own posts.

I also don't think he's young or stupid; I think he's just a mad old fellow who doesn't quite get the verifiability thing. He's trying to make Wikipedia better, but he doesn't understand why people can't just take his word for things, and when this is pointed out to him, he gets steamed. Not that unusual, really. I hope he can keep his cool long enough to contribute, since he obviously has some knowledge, which he has trouble fitting into the Wikipedia way. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 03:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that his personal style, which starts with a round of personal attacks before getting to the point of what he's trying to say, is abusive. But: Wikipedia isn't about personalities, it's about the encyclopedia. What happens on the talk pages isn't important except as it leads to changes in the articles. I have absolutely no idea who's right in the "postal town" dispute, but I would urge both sides of the question to seek a definitive QUOTABLE answer from a pre-existing postal authority, preferably a document that is accessible from the Post Office's web page so you can link to it. I have a sneaking suspicion that both of you are right, and that letters are successfully delivered using both techniques. I also have a sneaking suspicion that Jemmy's description of how letters are properly addressed to him is correct; "Ashton in Makerfield" is a more common town designation on his own mail than "Wigan", with the identical postcode )though both letters would be delivered). In truth, I'll bet the postal authorities never even look at the town; you could write "London" or "Khartoum" or "Humptulips" and it would still get there, as they go entirely by the code. I could be wrong; and I have no way to reference anything that says either way, which is why I've stayed out of this one (unlike Sankey Canal, where I was able to provide an official reference that portions at least of the canal are called "St Helens Canal".

It is true that he is a "wind up merchant" who seems incapable of making the simplest statement without snide attacks. I still think that as long as he keeps that under wraps a bit (as he was unable to do with me) he has the potential to be a valuable contributor. I could be wrong about that, too. Overall, he strikes me as one of those grumpy old fellows who still hasn't accepted the 1974 county-boundary redefinitions. These people are widespread, and while they're difficult, they can be valuable (and even entertaining) at times.

If there is an ongoing dispute over a matter of fact or interpretation, which cannot be finally resolved, the correct Wikipedian solution is not to fight to ensure that one's one interpretation prevails; it is to rewrite the article in such a way as to point out the dispute. Wikipedia's audience is not you or Jemmy; it is people who DON'T KNOW who come here for information. Part of that information may well turn out to be that people differ over the interpretation of "postal town", or that mail addressed in different and possibly even technically inaccurate ways can still be delivered. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 18:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think I'm getting the picture here. The most recent dispute is whether or not there is a post town in the Wigan postal area called "Ashton in Makerfield" or not. JemmyH. says there is. You and Galloglas say there isn't. Is that a correct summation of the factual dispute?

The Wikipedia list of postal towns gives only three post towns for the Wigan postal area: Leigh, Skelmersdale, and Wigan. Because parties to this dispute have been at that article, it's not a source. The Royal Mail's official Address Management Guide is referenced here but unavailable to me; I'm not going to shell out £40 to answer the question! I do note, however, that the Royal Mail's website, which is based on the same data as the AMG and must be considered authoritative, gives a result for address searches in Ashton in Makerfield (I gave it "Cross House, Millfield Ln, Ashton in Makerfield" as a test) of "WIGAN WN4 xxx, not "ASHTON IN MAKERFIELD WN4 xxx". This leads me to believe that Ashton was once a postal town but is no longer considered such. This would explain why JemmyH. still gets his mail with the Ashton town on it; the post office is unlikely to abandon historical usages even after they become unofficial. Or, as I suggested earlier, they don't even look at the town and just go straight to the code. So my conclusion is that you're right, JemmyH. is wrong, and he needs to stop promoting his possibly antique and possibly just cranky and contrarian viewpoint. Never mind. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 20:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It is an unfortunate situation. We appear to have here a user with a great deal of valuable local information, but who apparently does not accept that anything after 1974 has actually taken place. I've encountered people before who "don't believe in" the new county boundaries and so forth. Like I said, unfortunate. I've grown to kind of like old Jemmy; his vicious attack on my talk page was quite intense and creative. But not very appropriate for Wikipedia! \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 20:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I take back everything I said. The man is impossible. He has no interest in the truth, only in winding people up. I'm wound now. How do we get him blocked? \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 01:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Why bother asking to get him blocked? he should be banned permanently but it seems nobody here has the balls to do it. Although you may think his information and knowledge is valueable, it is not always accurate. He is also NOT funny. Look at his own talk page, it's riddled with arguments and warnings, he may have been blocked for a few days, what good is that going to do? HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN BANNED MONTHS AGO! 80.193.169.137 00:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

A.F.C Bournemouth Youth Squad Template.

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_18#Template:A.F.C_Bournemouth_Youth_Squad

I just added this template down for deletion. Hope you don't mind. Govvy 22:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sanctimonia non grata

It seems there is a brand new and amazingly good cause with which you can donate your money to - The Historic Counties Trust (!).

Although external to the site, it might be one to watch so that it NOT used as a legitimate source for compromising text on Wikipedia. It's interesting that I suggesting renaming this system to the Historic counties of England (from traditional), and this approach has been adopted by several other webspaces. This trust also lifts material from the ABC gazzetter and is probably (covertly) affiliated. Jhamez84 02:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Ouch!

Was that revert really a good idea? Does that actually solve the problem - or does it aggrevate matters. I have pointed out a problem with the template. I have asked for discussion. It may well be that the template is considered to be perfect as it stands. But while another editor has reported they have problems with it, and is asking for solutions - it doesn't look helpful to me to put the template so far back that the whole article now looks nonsense! I can tell you I'm really not happy with this. Was that part of your intention? SilkTork 08:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Come on now, don't get upset. I immediately explained my reasons on the template talk page. You only needed to look there. MRSC • Talk 08:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Yes, I was a bit pissed this morning. It felt like a blunt revert and an avoidance of the real issue. I've never been in favour of reverts. A revert isn't someone taking up the baton and carrying it to the next stage. A revert feels like someone is throwing the baton back. A revert is something done when a vandal has damaged a page. I don't feel like a vandal - I feel like an editor who has an issue with a template. But, yes, I over-reacted. There is plenty of time. And it really doesn't matter if the template remains in one state or another while the discussion takes place. It's just that, on a personal level, I would have preferred the template to be in the state that was - for me - less problematic. Your revert came dead on top of another one, so it hit me hard. I'm cool now. What will be will be. SilkTork 16:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk archives: Infobox England, Scotland, Wales

Excellent work on Template:Infobox UK place . Just a note to request that you take care in archiving template talk pages which contain documentation notes as well as discussion. Thanks. — mholland 22:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

OL postcode area

Thanks MRSC,

The OL postcode area was virtually fine - only needed a little elabroration as you said.

Do we know of a more mature postcode area article which can be referenced for ideas and headings etc?

I also noticed Template:Infobox UK place and the discussions taking place there from the comments above. Is this template a potential replacement for the current England place infobox? Are we considering using a countywide map in replacement of a national map?

I'm quite pleased with the existing infobox, but a template for the Geo-admin sections would flick my switch, so to speak! Not sure what your thoughts are.

I've considered creating a dynamic map for Greater Manchester (based upon the London and Paris maps) some time ago when I started overhalling the GM area articles, but I didn't have the technical know-how. I'd be happy to collaborate and/or pass comment.

I'm also considering starting a GM WikiProject as there are a few quality editors from the area beginning to pop up. Jhamez84 18:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting! I'm torn on the mapping system idea for infoboxes. Has a consensus been met yet? I'd be much happier with both a national and a citywide map for the conurbations. Has this been considered/is this technically feasible? I notice the conurbation map seems to work for the global cities however. Eitherway, that particular GM map has got to be smartened up asap! I may be able to help provide this, producing something more akin to the Greater London outline map. Jhamez84 18:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds promising. I'm a little rusty, but will try to draw up a new map in Adobe Illustrator. Jhamez84 18:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Preferences

A few quick questions... The new map I'm drawing up looks great; it includes shaded urban areas, borough and county boundaries.

We have a few options however. Do we want to include shaded urban areas outside of the county boundaries? I have both motorways and rivers included (like the London map), do we wish to keep these?

Any preference in colours (is there a Wiki-wide standard, or a particularly good map?)?

Thanks, Jhamez84 22:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Image:Greater Manchester outline map v3.png for a possibility. I now have the master copy which has each feature stored as layers which have have instant colour changes or be made transparent. Let me know your thoughts? Jhamez84 01:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Issues addressed

I've address some issues that a few users raised. The ammended map is found at Image:Greater Manchester outline map.png. It includes a few urban areas on the far west I'd missed and a clearer motorway system. I'm sure it is now ready for infobox use. Jhamez84 20:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've made a few suggestions myself at the Infobox talk page. However, I find it objectionable that historic counties are in the same geographic system section as contemporary geography. Can this be moved more akin to the existing infoboxes? I do think they should be present, but think this is misleading as to the spread of use for this system.

Also I've uploaded the GM map but may need some help recalibrating the co-ordinates for the pointer to work accurately. Jhamez84 20:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've virtually fixed the co-ordinate settings for this mapping system now, producing accurate results. Examples found in my sandbox. Jhamez84 15:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Category talk:People from Wolverhampton by settlement

Thought you might be interested in this. Regan123 22:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing to the discussion. Your thoughts were greatly appreciated, especially those in relation to dealing with problematic cases such as those outlined on that page. Fingerpuppet 08:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies for being a grumpy so-and-so this morning. I'm simply trying to work out the best way of proceeding with the category, as I know of at least one individual in the category that the whole one town spread across multiple modern local authority affects. Fingerpuppet 11:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

List of A.F.C Bournemouth Reserve and Academy name change

I have changed List o AFC Bournemouth Reserve and Academy title to A.F.C. Bournemouth Reserve & Academy. I hope this is OK as it was changed last time by you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Afcb12 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Sanctimonia really non grata

Thanks for your efforts in producing the infobox. Looks really promising and you've accomodated alot of the initial suggestions. Do we have any idea as to when it may be suitable for rolling out onto articles?

Historic Counties Trust as a Wiki article has popped up. I'm going to nominate it for speedy delete - yes I'm biased against the aims and objectives of the site, but none-the-less don't believe it is nearly notable enough for inclusion, and its being on Wikipedia is little more than self promotion.

I am concerned that the external site may have been set up just a means to act as a source for Wikipedia!!! - a phenominon and dissertaion topic in itself if ever there has been one! Jhamez84 21:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:London Met Boro

Hi. I've changed the layout slightly to this template, just for aesthetic reasons really. If you have a chance, please have a look, as you were the creator, and revert it if you think it was better before. Thanks, Scott 01:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Archiving and Gtr Mcr

The GB place Infobox talk page may need an archive. I'd do it myself, but I'm unsure if it's appropriate yet; some sections are active though. Any thoughts?

Do you have any good, solid reference material which may help at Talk:Greater_Manchester? A user is adamant that the county is, legally, only a ceremonial conurbation (this diff makes me ill!). Conventional reference material doesn't seem to have had impact.

I know you are incredibly involved with the infobox implimentation at the moment so no probs if you can't point me in the right direction. Kindest regards, Jhamez84 18:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

PS. Perhaps a comment on the GM talk page may help. Jhamez84 18:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you as always. The infobox is looking great - I'm hoping another user bestows a banstar upon you for this! Great stuff. Jhamez84 18:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've provisionally upgraded the infobox at Shaw and Crompton. I think it looks good, but have we considered including somehow a message that could say "Shown within Greater Manchester" (like on say the Merseyside article), or "Shown within X" depending on what map is selected? I think this would be a massive improvement, but I'm unsure if it is technically feasible.

I'll post this again at the infobox talk page, for all to see, and consider.Jhamez84 01:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've made the recommended ammendments to the Greater London map. I'm a little tied up in real life (I'll have withdrawal symptoms from lack of Wiki no doubt!), but I'll upload it sometime tomorrow afternoon. If there are any requests for these maps for each metropolitan county (to start with), feel free to contact me, or direct people to me accordingly, as I quite enjoy doing them. Jhamez84 23:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Map and AWB

Myself and G-Man have uploaded alternative maps for Greater Manchester for the infobox (I do care about other places, honest!). Speaking for myself, my version is based on objections and suggestions made at the template talk page - I think it is an improvement. Whichever we go for, I'd like to see it uploaded sooner, rather than later (we'll need to slightly alter the long and lat points again, and I'll be happy to change the other region maps to look the same - a great concern of mine for the future).

I maintain that automating the generation of city-region maps would be the best approach, particulary up north, as even with the consensus we appear to have, militant anons are likely to keep picking at this every now-and-again.

If you could pass comment, that'd be great.

I also have AWB up and running - it's around 90% accurate I'd say, but I've converted around 100 in a night none-the-less! We're making progress. Jhamez84 02:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Crossrail

I've re-added Crossrail to the infoboxes on each station on its route. Before you revert them again, first hear me out. While I accept that Crossrail is a little bit up in the air right now, there has been nothing said categorically that it has, or will be cancelled. As a consequence, I think it is appropriate to put the route on the pages of the stations it affects, with the added proviso that it is put in nice big black letters that Crossrail is Proposed (I have done something similar to the pages of stations that Wrexham & Shropshire are planning to use. Given that the Crossrail route is confirmed, as is (seemingly) a sort of draft timetable, I think this is fair. But, I'll leave it up to you to think if this is a fair argument. Hammersfan 13/03/07, 11.40 GMT

I do agree that these things shouldn't be added for every scheme that crops up; for example, there are the Grand Union and Humber & City proposals that have been made which are little more than pipe dreams at the moment. Likewise Crossrail Lines 2 & 3 (or, if you believe the talk, up to Crossrail 5 - it's said that Ken has gotten a new pack of marker pens for his birthday!!). But for something like Crossrail 1(and WSMR to a lesser extent), given that these have a detailed route announced, and a (reasonably) accurate initial (or at least hoped for) timetable, then I think it's fair to include them on the route boxes as clearly proposed new routes. After all, it is easy enough to remove them if and when confirmation is made of their cancellation. Hammersfan 13/03/07, 16.00 GMT

Didsbury Article

I have to congratulate you on your map which located Didsbury inside the Greater Manchester area. The article looks alot better now! I don't know how to give a tireless barnstar award...........so I'm sorry about that. I would if I did!

Thanks once again. Brylcreem2 18:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Geo microformat

Please will you help to implement Geo microformat in Infobox UK place? Thank you. Andy Mabbett 22:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox UK place suggestion

I thought it might be better to discuss an idea for the Infobox UK place template here first as I'm not actually sure where it's a good idea yet.

With places such as Aberdeen having things like distances to Edinburgh & London in the infobox & the continued discussions about historic counties, I was thinking that one option may be to add some generic parameters as below which could then be used for these sorts of items, where the topic authors think that they are really necessary in the infobox. - WOSlinker 23:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

{{#if:{{{trivia1_title|}}}|
	<tr class="mergedtoprow">
		<th>{{{trivia1_title}}}</th>
		<td>{{{trivia1_details}}}</td>
	</tr>
}}{{#if:{{{trivia2_title|}}}|
	<tr class="mergedrow">
		<th>{{{trivia2_title}}}</th>
		<td>{{{trivia2_details}}}</td>
	</tr>
}}{{#if:{{{trivia3_title|}}}|
	<tr class="mergedrow">
		<th>{{{trivia3_title}}}</th>
		<td>{{{trivia3_details}}}</td>
	</tr>
}}

Implementation

This is a friendly warning. All implementation of {{Infobox UK place}} will be reverted, including for districts of Sheffield. Cheers, Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this means. Does it mean that all instances throughout wikipedia where the UK place infobox has been used will be reverted, or does it just restrict the "friendly warning" to articles that are about "districts of Sheffield"?  DDStretch  (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Green Street

Hi ya. Green Street (street), I'm sure you're not responsible for that one, but is it not more normal to have Green Street (film); or Green Street (Newham). Just thought I'd mention it ... Kbthompson 19:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

SE postcode area

I don't know why you have removed all the content from the individual postcode entries or where you debated it, but I find it undesirable as it removed substantial content. Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Postal district and Wikipedia talk:Do lists of postal codes belong on Wikipedia? don't seem to have a consensus so I intend to revert your redirects. --Henrygb 00:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

LTS Line

I just thought it would be best to discuss this. GOBLIN does physically connect with the LTS Line at Barking. Also, it should be just before Barking, "link to Great Eastern Main Line" as it acts as a diversion which goes to Liverpool Street most times, and rarely back to Fenchurch Street. Simply south 12:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

RE: Infobox UK place #Missing from various articles

(I put this here as someone will complain otherwise, about the idea of the heinous crime of suggesting further UK infobox integration!)

I have read the archived talk now and I understand what you mean. When/if this new infobox is created I would like to be involved. I'm sure terrible grumbles would be involved but the Template:Infobox Scotland council area could probably be considered for involvement in any new template. As a Scot I understand the way the system works here and can contribute, let me know if it happens. Bobbacon 09:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the whole thing is out of control. I have to admit I was peeved at first but I don't understand why people have got on their high horses about it all- its not that big a deal. I just got over it took no (or at least very little) offense, then looked at the facts and the UK Infobox is just better, there is no doubt about it.

I think a lot of the other Scottish users just don't want to see change as the WikiProject Scotland is their baby and they want to have absolute control, you could show them an identical box and they would still complain, just because its not 'theirs' and since they would have their 'own' place infobox as part of their project.

Something that annoys me especially is that there has been next to no activity on the Scottish infobox bar me since I joined at Christmas- I have put a lot of work in but can see few others are- it is nowhere near a perfect infobox but it is just being ignored pretty much. I don't see why people even care! As this is the case, i'd much rather work with a larger base (ie. 60million UK people rather than 5million Scottish) because then things get done faster and work better in the end. Bobbacon 09:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Chadwell Parish

The people who attend service at Chadwell parish church will be surprised to learn that it is not a parish. We need to distinguish between the civil parish and the CofE parish. I'll put something in the administrative history section. Rjm at sleepers 07:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you happen to know whether it ceased to be a civil parish when it became part of the Tilbury Urban District? Rjm at sleepers 07:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

020 dial code map

Hi! Thanks for the contact and request - I'm more than happy to develop maps to improve some of these article!

Is this what you had in mind for the 020 (UK dial code) article? - the content is based upon the source you provided, and the style is in that of the Saddleworth infobox map I produced yesterday. I hope it is suitable. Any inaccuracies (I don't think there are), feel free to direct me.

On another note, I think the infobox flag debate is going to be quite something. Though I don't have particularly strong views on it. I'm very interested to see how this one will pan out! I posted about 25 notices on various Wikipages and projects that may have users interested in taking part in the straw poll. Jhamez84 12:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I've made the changes to encompass Whyteleafe on the map. Hopefully this should finish the map, though if other changes are needed, I'm happy to make these at any time. You may have to refresh your browser to see the changes.

I hoping to get the West Midlands map (see Dudley for example) calibrated correctly next, then move on and finish each metropolitan county off with it's own infobox map. GM and GL are working really well it seems. After that, the options are endless for other articles - but my aim is to get a consistent look at least for England for conurbation maps in infoboxes. Jhamez84 13:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean like this? Jhamez84 19:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd also appreciate you looking into automating maps from the infoboxo syntax! I've raised this at the UK place talk page, as Horwich appears to be receiving strange reversions and even its very own (and very inaccurate) Image:Horwich in Greater Manchester.png. It could be a sustained problem for Greater Manchester (it's name and lack of postal recognition make it particularly vulnerable).

Any more maps in the meantime however, feel free to ask! Jhamez84 02:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't even know that barnstar existed! I'll double my efforts!... Jhamez84 12:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, the 020 dial code and London postal districts are slightly cropped versions (on all sides) of the original Greater London map (for composision), so if using them in a map template based on co-ordinates, you may have to ammend the settings ever so slightly for perfection.

Also, I've thought, that if automating maps in the infobox, places like Saddleworth (which is a civil parish but not a settlement) may suffer, I'll just keep my eye on places in and around Horwich and Blackrod (where the infobox was removed outright). Jhamez84 12:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Irredentism

Just wondering if you have any material about Wigan? There has been a persistent (every day for the last six months) contention from an unregistered user about the status of the town, and what is contained within its boundaries

Most editors, myself included, having looked at contemporary sources such as the ONS, and OS, agree that Wigan is a large town with a population of c.81,000, and includes smaller localities such as Pemberton, Greater Manchester, and Poolstock. One user insists this is for a local government defined area, and not the true town boundary. Pemberton was added to the County Borough of Wigan in 1904, though it has been put that Pemberton is a seperate town in the borough. I'm inclined to disagree, but the warring and trolling is getting nowhere.

If you can't help, it might not be long before Wigan is added to this list! Hope you can share some thoughts. Jhamez84 22:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Some ideas..... for the future

I'll hold back a little whilst the lists settle and some of the newer maps are inputted. But, some next steps whilst there is a hotbed of great editors around, I think would include:

• Creating a WP:UKCITIES guideline page, that de-Americanises the WP:CITIES guidelines. Some American users are using these guidelines to fail UK settlement articles on their WP:GA nomination (even if they are not cities - Middlewich). I don't think they translate particularly well to the UK. We may also need to set up and impliment standardised guidelines for counties, towns, villages etc as part of UKCITIES.
• Coverting all the old infoboxes over completely.
• Changing (or redirect) the List of places in Yorkshire to a contemporary (N, S & W) county set of lists (Finningley is in South Yorkshire, but "historically" part of Nottinghamshire - thus a point of conflict occurs).
• Agree on a standardised gazeteer style for the (county?) lists articles so we have consistency.
• Roll out city-region/county maps (assuming we had consensus - I think we did), so that places within a mapping region, use their county maps - (possibly via AWB).

Some of these don't pertain to the UK place infobox I know, but I'd like to capitalise on the amount of activity the infobox is recieving from so many quality editors. I know there is still a huge amount of work yet to be done just for the infoboxes, so I'm holding back posting these officially, but just wanted to share some ideas with you before I forget. You may have ideas of your own, of course. Jhamez84 20:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've made some changes to List of places in Greater Manchester, to reflect the List of places in London article. I've also included a table of settlements in the few section akin to the Kent list. Jhamez84 19:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply

You said "..... but several editors hold a different opinion." .... However, you have overlooked the fact that the 'several editors' you mention are promoting their 'ideas' and not what is 'verifiable'. You will notice, if you take the time to look, that I have provided 'verifiable sources' to accompany my edits. The 'verifiable sources' provided by the other editors re: population, are, if you look carefully, giving different figures for the same area (not Wigan, by the way) and the same figures for different areas! Not one matches another. My source [[1]] shows OFFICIAL CENSUS results (published by the 'borough council' and accepted by central government) shows the population of Wigan North, which contains 'Wigan', as 35,932. Wigan population , as part of that figure (according to the 'Metropolitan Borough Council' OFFICIAL ESTIMATE (not published) is approx. 18,000. 80.193.161.89 18:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)JemmyH.

PS ... 'Wigan North' contains Wigan, Ince in Makerfield and Aspull. 'Wigan South' (as opposed to Wigan North) contains Pemberton, Winstanley, Orrell and Billinge Higher End. Wigan North population figure = 35,932. Wigan South figure = 37,252. 35,932 + 37,252 = 73,184. The population figure for .... Ince in Makerfield + Aspull + Wigan + Pemberton + Winstanley + Orrell + Billinge Higher End = 73,184. 'OFFICIAL', 'PUBLISHED', 'VERIFIABLE' figures. How can Wigan alone (as is the subjest of 'the article', have a population figure of over 81,000 ??????? 80.193.161.89 19:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

Attribution? Attributable sources? This is what it says ...... 'The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source...'. That is 'Reliable Published Source'. [[2]] IS a 'Reliable Published Source'. Read the ABOVE for what a 'Reliable Published Source' gives for population figures of the large area 'surrounding Wigan'! 80.193.161.89 10:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

AND, this ....... 'Calculations using census output figures are an even more problematic way of 'proving' the existence of a place'...... is meaningless! The 'census output figures' are a very good way of 'proving' the 'population' of a place. 80.193.161.89 10:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

--Sorry MRSC, I've had this for a while too (!). I've left a response to the status of this source at the Wigan talk page. Jhamez84 22:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

LB Tower Hamlets

Hi

Are you OK with the template:LB Tower Hamlets? Good idea/bad idea - nicked it from Richmond, anyway. If it's cool with you, I'll do LBH and LBI. Kbthompson 17:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation

I am going to move this to Sites of importance for nature conservation around London as it ony refers to London and capitalisation. However, i think the original page should act as a disambig to the new site and also SSSI or nature resrves etc. What do you think? Simply south 17:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. However, the title suggests broader than just Greater London. Simply south 17:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

E, W, S + N London

I know i am being a bit pinickety but why are these only of mid-importance to the London project? Simply south 22:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

City of London infobox

If I remember correctly and I could be wrong, that you are one of the main editors of London related stuff. Therefore, for your information, I played with the City of London's infobox. Give it a look, I think I matched all the parameters of the old infobox and added a couple new ones. If you think others will like it then keep it. Otherwise, it wouldn't hurt my feelings if you revert it. You would be a better judge of those editors than I and like I said I was more or less experimenting. Regards, —MJCdetroit 16:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

UK infobox local place

Hello again,

Just wondered if you have any thoughts about recent edits which "localise" the UK infobox place? There has been an introduction of a suburb switch which I strongly object to on the talk page.

As the original architect, and closely involved editor, I was wondering if you could pass comment at the talk page under the heading of "suburbs".

Hope all is well. Jhamez84 15:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of London WC1

An editor has nominated London WC1, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Various Postcodes and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 18:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of London EC1

An editor has nominated London EC1, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Various Postcodes and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 18:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

UK School Infoboxes

Hi, I noticed that you had been doing some changes to the UK Schools Infoboxes and was wondering if you knew which one we should be using now. There are several possible ones to choose from and it would be good if we could standardise on a single one and get rid of the others.

Keith D 15:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Lancs or Yorks?

Hello again,

Just wondering (as always) if you have anything about the former postal county status for Saddleworth?

It has an OL3 postcode, though was part of Yorkshire, and lumped with a large part of Lancashire in '74 to now form the Oldham Metropolitan Borough. It's a administratively histo-geographically unusual place, having also once been part of Salfordshire and I'm trying to incorporate this within the Saddleworth article.

Of course some locals today insist on using a Yorkshire postal county, though I'm curious if officially had a Lancashire postal county, or even had a West Yorkshire postal county.

Hope you can help and all is well, Jhamez84 00:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Poll options on Fred Dibnah's birthplace

I've started a poll on Talk:Fred Dibnah with four options for his birthplace area. As you've edited the main Fred Dibnah article, I'm letting you know about this Poll and the chance to vote one of the options. Cwb61 (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Buses WikiProject

I notice that you have edited lists of bus routes recently. You might be interested in helping with the new WikiProject buses, especially the proposed Bus route list guide. We are also working out when a bus route should have its own article and other issues. --NE2 15:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)