User talk:G-Man/Archive 6, Nov 2005-Feb 2007

Important AfD

Hi. If you have time please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators. I'm a bit worried that the main protagonist for the keep side is threatening to reverse the long-established consensus against creating historical categorization schemes on Wikipedia based on editors' original research. Best regards. 172 21:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Deal

Over the past few days, User:Rjensen has done considerable work on the article. It turns out that Rjensen is Richard Jensen, a well-known leading contemporary scholar on the New Deal. However, Jensen's have been getting mixed up with those of User:RJII, one of Wikipedia's most tendentious Ayn Rand POV-warriors... As Jensen definitely knows more about the subject than any Wikipedia editor, I'll let him take the lead in dealing with RJII. In the meantime, we can back him up by reverting RJII's edits, if it must come to that. 172 21:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Russian architecture

Thanks for responding to my request for protection there. I took a bit too long in coming up with a proposed revision, but that was okay. In the mean time the discussion cooled down, and another admin unprotected the page—no burst of reverting ensued. I have just submitted a revision which hopefully will be somewhere close to acceptable for everyone (fingers crossed). We'll see what happens. Thanks again; I think that was very helpful. —Michael Z. 2005-12-1 05:45 Z

Map

I'm rather confused about what's happening in the Birmingham bit. I think having county boundaries between the surrounding counties might help. Morwen - Talk 23:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

How do you mean. G-Man 00:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wagons 550.jpg

Curious about Image:Wagons 550.jpg. The load looks very grey for limestone, fresh (I'm assuming it must be fresh if it's being trnasported) limestone where's I'm from is a baige/yellow - it's a different colour in your part of the world?--Commander Keane 17:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UK geography COTM

OK, so I finally found time for some Wikipeding (after about five months of Northumberland!) and have picked Nottinghamshire for the next COTM. I've added a to do list to the talk page and have already started work adding some of the basic data. Joe D (t) 04:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC) P.S. To stop receiving updates, unsubscribe at WP:UK geo.[reply]

Hi, the new COTM is Norfolk! Joe D (t) 23:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this month's COTM is Dartmoor. I have added some suggestions to Talk:Dartmoor to get things started. Joe D (t) 01:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC) (P.S., if you don't want to continue getting COTM updates, just change your settings at WP:UK geo.)[reply]

The WP:UK geo collaboration of the month for October 2006 is Rutland. 80N 21:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC) (P.S., if you don't want to continue getting COTM updates, just change your settings at WP:UK geo.)[reply]

Counties

I don't know. It does seem possible. I need to get the London Government Act and the one that created Huntingdon and Peterborough to find out for certain. I suggest being cautious about this one. No Wikipedia:Original research on anyone's part.

My understanding is that: yes, it was the statutory counties that were not formally abolished in 1974 (but they were supplanted). I don't think this sheds any light onto the present existence or not of traditional counties; but it is useful in terms of attitudes at the time. I think the Letters page of The Times of the era would be interesting reading. Morwen - Talk 21:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Counties

Yes, I was reading some of the ..er.. debate. It can get pretty intense by all signs.. I can't see how traditional counties can exist if they're not used for *anything*. Mind you I still think of the Middlesex and Surrey sides of the Thames. Which makes them "geographical counties". I do a lot of genealogy work and knowing about shifting county boundaries is vital - not least to figure which county record office to contact! But this info is valuable because the counties were *in use* at the time. Which makes them "historical" counties. I don't know about the "traditional" part of it. I lived in South Wales for some years and I never met anyone from East Cardiff who thought they were from Monmouthshire, although they were that side of the river.
Incidentally the argument about "traditional counties" being used for parliamentary constituencies up to 1918 is a red herring. The boundaries before that were set in 1885, before the 1888 Act (which specifically left them alone). They were out of date, as were the constituencies used in the 1979 election - based on the pre 1974 admin counties.
But it's an emotional subject and I expect my share of flaming mnow.. Lozleader 21:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The present tense *is* troubling. What also doesn't make sense is stating that such and such a place is the county town of a traditional county. What does that mean? County towns were, I think, where the County Assizes were held. Those long since were abolished (or may be traditional judicial counties with traditional judges exist too, unknown to the rest of us). The other use of county town is the *administrative* centre of a county. It's weak stuff, really...Lozleader 20:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moving

Don't know. Don't think there's anything really to write about about the unitary non-metropolitans as opposed to other unitaries - if it gets too big and we have to split it, yeah. But for not I should keep it where it is, or at least have a redirect.

By the way - I am thinking about splitting Broxbourne, since it seems we missed that one before. Thoughts? Morwen - Talk 21:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine to me. G-Man 21:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Counties of Scotland

Very satisfactory merge. Have we lost the mention of the joint county councils? I shall include them on my upcoming page on Scottish local authorities 1930 -75 - it's on the medium finger! Plodding through compiling a list of royal and police burghs at the moment - about two thirds of the way through. Lozleader 23:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[1] dates it at 1597, but I'm not sure think we should use that date, as VoB has a habit of taking things out of context. Certainly it was well before the 19th century, from my notes about parish councils. They were really strongly interrelated though, and then you had townships, which would sometimes have vestries of their own. I think it would be fairer to say the 1894 act regularised them.

Wrt Scotland, I don't mind. Morwen - Talk 20:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see

Aberdeenshire - the modern UA
Aberdeenshire (historic) - the pre-1975 county

Renfrewshire - the modern UA
Renfrewshire (historic) - the pre-1975 county

Also would like to see East Riding of Yorkshire be about the UA, East Riding of Yorkshire (historic), etc. The tests are

do they have significantly different boundaries?
do they have a "break" in existence? (renamings don't count)

In the case of all those, the answer is yes - from 1974/1975 to 1996, they didn't exist, and then they got reinstated with different boundaries. In this case its not very useful treating them as one entity. If the answer is no to either of them - then don't split.

Note this isn't the same as splitting off articles about the "traditional" counties, because the Aberdeenshire (historic) would cover everything until 1975, and then the other article would cover everything since 1996. Historic seems a good term here, its used in that sense in Hansard (in the sense of counties that have been around a long time, without regard to their borders). Morwen - Talk 20:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a quick note to say sorry for not getting back to you, and that I have not forgotten. But you guys seem to be making good progress. Lozreader, have you seen: Royal Burgh, List of UK place names with royal patronage, Burgh and Large burgh? I have been doing a bit of work at Category:Royal burghs (only half-completed) and Category:Large burghs (completed), and I would like to see at some future time: Category:Small burghs, with accompanying explanatory article & list (or perhaps just a section at Large burgh).

I totally support Morwen's proposals regarding the naming of the Aberdeenshire and Renfrewshire articles. By the way, "Unitary authority" seems to have gone out of fashion as a descriptor. I suppose that it was novel for a while, after centuries of double or triple tiers, but the term "council area" for the geographic area, and "council" (not the more formal "local authority") for the political organisation/admin have become by far the most common descriptors. I was actually thinking about initiating a Cfd discussion/vote on renaming Category:Unitary authorities of Scotland to Category:Council areas of Scotland. Or would that even be necessary: could we just do a manual rename?--Mais oui! 21:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Parishes

Those links don't actually say that. They talk of splitting the administration - which is true, prior to 1894 the civil parishes were administered by church vestries. I'm not sure what happened precisely in areas where the civil parishes didn't align with the ecclesiastal one. But that situation did arise. You'll note to this day that legislation speaks of 'parishes' not 'civil parishes'. Morwen - Talk 21:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient counties and the Census

Well, the census reports do indeed include returns for ancient counties - see these pages from Queen's University, Belfast:

http://www.qub.ac.uk/cdda/gis/e1891.html

http://www.qub.ac.uk/cdda/gis/e1901.html

One of them links to an image from the report.

However, I believe the information was probably included for the very practical purpose of allowing one to compare population for areas going back in time - comparing "like with like". One could compile figures on ancient Rome, but it doesn't mean it still exists! 159.134.156.148 17:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh darn it, forgot to log in! That was me talking...Lozleader 17:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gun politics in the United Kingdom

Hi, thanks for your input. I reverted your removal of the fact tags as I intend to cite these in the body of the test per Wikipedia:Footnotes. Please help if you can :) People shouldn't have to search for this stuff. I also think you forgot to put the template on the talk page, I returned it. It should be on the article page anyway. - FrancisTyers 21:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Highland

Well, at least he's not moving it to English unitary district of county of Herefordshire. Morwen - Talk 07:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1996 Manchester City Centre bombing

You've now reverted four times in 24 hours on this page. Please revert back to Palmiro's last version and don't revert any more for a while.

It would be far better to source the word you want putting in.

Please read the policy on neutral point of view, in particular the following:

"To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents."

"We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves."

Thanks. James James 22:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Articles without bias describe debates fairly instead of advocating any side of the debate."

I havn't reverted to the same version, so no I wont revert 3RR only applies if a revert is to the same version. Secondly I have read the NPOV policy and your quotation is utterly selective. please try reading the Undue Weight section. Secondly my version is not "adopting a position" it is merely stating how the attack was almost universally described. G-Man * 22:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you look at the three revert rule, you can't get around it like that. Undoing someone else's contributions in order to get bcak to your preferred version counts anyway.

Why not just find out which world leaders condemned it and mention that, if you are convinced that it's worthwhile to repeat their ritualistic condemnation of every IRA attack? If you can say "the attack was condemned by Irish and British political leaders" or something of the sort I doubt that anyone will greatly object. Palmiro | Talk 23:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Please don't mark contentious edits as "minor". It doesn't work anyway. You're just pushing the same sterile point, whatever you mark it as. Why not just source someone condemning the attack as "terrorist"? It surely can't be that hard for you to find a source rather than present your own POV? James James 09:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Meetup/Birmingham

This is just a reminder that the Birmingham meetup of UK Wikipedians that you have expressed an interst in is happening tomorrow. Sorry for the short notice. Thryduulf 15:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries, Part II

Re: [2], [3]; these were both marked as minor edits, in clear breach of editing guidelines.

from Help:Minor edit:

Reversions of pages are not likely to be considered minor edits under most circumstances. When the status of a page is disputed, and particularly if an edit war is brewing, then it's better not to mark any edit as minor.

Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette, especially if the change involves the deletion of some text

I actually agree with parts of your edit, and would not have mentioned it here - had it not been repeated twice, only one month after another editor above asked the same. I normally screen minor edits out, and am following this page with interest - please don't exclude me from developments. Aquilina 10:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northampton

I see you reverted by recent layout changes with "No, that doesn't work". I've added an explaination to the article talk page, could you reply there and let me know exactly what parts didn't work and why? Regards, MartinRe 19:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PP

Hey! Please try not to overlook adding a page you protect to the list of currently protected pages at WP:PP. Thanks a bunch. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 21:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coventry edits...

You've entirely ripped out my update on the Coventry page about the FOLK LEGEND, I repeat, F-O-L-K L-E-G-E-N-D, regarding the links between St. George and the city, under the guise that it is unverified. Well, I tried to contact both St. George, and his Father of FOLK LEGEND, Mr. Of Warwick. Sadly neither was able to verify my story, what with being dead for hundreds of years etc. I believe most FOLK LEGENDS are unverified by nature, which is why it is known as a FOLK LEGEND. Please, reinstate it, and give the readers of the page the credit of knowing the difference between legend and fact. I belive that my use of this term does not constitute myself claiming this to be fact. I found your edit to be without basis and wholly arrogant. BobDBilde 15:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dozens of places claim to have links with St George, I dont see that Coventry's claimed link is commonly held or particularly notable, Coventry is not even mentioned in the Saint George article. I see no reason why this merits inclusion in the main history section of the Coventry article. It is not the job of an encyclopedia article to list every bit of unimportant trivia, Sorry if this has upset you, but it does say "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it..". If it is of particular importance then perhaps a section of "Legendary associations with Coventry" or something could be created. G-Man * 19:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, but I disagree. Fair enough it might not be of note to a random car enthusiast or whatever. But far from being "unimportant trivia" it's actually a big part of the City's history, especially if you're from the East/South-East of the City. As a schoolkid I've played St. George in Traditional Coventry Mummers Plays etc and we did loads of stuff on it. Plus, it's debatably as contextually as important to the city's history as the Godiva legend in confirming Coventry's size and status in medieval Britain. So I'm sticking it back in, and maybe you'd do me the courtesy of seeing if anyone else objects before taking it out again? BobDBilde 16:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (UK stations)

Hi G-Man, thanks for participating to the debate concerning the naming of stations' articles. From what I have seen you seem to be in dissagreement with the scheme and generally in agreement with me. This is why I would like to urge you to cast your vote to block the proposition so we may continue editing. See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (UK stations), regards, Captain scarlet 11:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Traditional counties" - Sockpuppet investigation - User:Owain

An investigation is now underway, at my request:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser#Owain_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29.2C_MonMan_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29.

Other relevant material at:

Wikipedia:Requests for investigation (both at Watchlist (Owain), and at Under investigation (it is me that was first "under investigation", at the request of User:Owain)
User_talk:JzG#User:Owain_using_a_sockpuppet.3F
User_talk:Petros471#User:Owain_using_a_sockpuppet.3F

Please keep an eye on the progress of this: any additional information you can supply would be highly valued, but I really just want some calm heads to watch this situation. I intend to also post this notice at the Talk pages of some Admins, eg Morwen (talk · contribs). Thanks. --Mais oui! 11:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commons

Hi, I've seen you have uploaded many photos. Good job. But why don't using more often Wikimedia Commons? It would be easier for others project. (I came from Italian Wikipedia - I'm sorry for my bad english - where an user have just re-uploaded some of your images... it's a duplicate, commons is a better solution) - Laurentius 20:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norm Coleman

Hi, I am sending this message to serious contributors who may be interested in articles related to U.S. politics. I believe I am receiving an unreasonable response-- and at times insulting and rude-- from the editors of Norm Coleman article, who refuse to remove a section that may offer some interesting trivia for Wikipeidia users, but is irrelevant to people interested in reading an encyclopedia article on a member of U.S. Senate. If you have time, please take a look at the article. Regards. 172 | Talk 03:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done

I actually did enjoy reading your intro page -- you probably dont care, but ill tell you anyway.--DragonFly31 15:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you related to me, S-man?

Pic of Stanford Hall

Hi, I'm sending this message with regard to the picture that is posted on the info page on Sir Julien Cahn of Stanford Hall. The picture is of the wrong Stanford Hall! There are in fact two Stanford Hall's - one as you rightly say in Leicestershire, but the one Sir Julien owned is in Nottinghamshire although it's right on the border. It's normally listed as Stanford Hall, Loughborough - just to confuse matters!! It was bought by the co-op in 1945 and about 5 years ago was sold to Raynesway Developers who are sitting on it, doing not very much right now. Hope this helps. Kind regards.

Is this the G-man? "Like the pic. We should meet up"

"Traditional counties" of Scotland

The County Watch and ABC are at it yet again: trying to claim that Scotland has "traditional counties". We knocked that myth on the head last year, when we merged the Traditional counties of Scotland article with the Administrative counties of Scotland article. Well now they are trying to say that the situation in Scotland and England is equivalent, see Template_talk:Scotland_counties#Merger. It is not. I am sick to the back teeth of this. Can you please keep an eye on the situation? --Mais oui! 09:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Irate

I must admit straight off that I do not know the details of this case, but, based on what I do know, I have suggested that User:Irate be unblocked, as long as they commit to Wikipedia policy. If I am way off the mark, then please say so. You will find the discussion here:

Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse#Banned_User:Irate

Thanks. --Mais oui! 19:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

River Soar?

The picture isn't strictly the River Soar. I've put a note to that effect in the talk section of the river's article. (A picture of the corresponding section of the actual river would be a pretty dingey sight though)--Mongreilf 16:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fire brigades in the United Kingdom

Hi there, I notice that you've restored the above article, and I was wondering if you had read the article Fire Service in the UK, and the associated discussion pages beforehand? The title Fire brigades etc is inappropriate. Today, they are known as Fire and Rescue Authorities or generically as the Fire Service (some exceptions inc LFB). Also the above article title is too long and very out of date, and limited in terms of usefulness... however it does contain the excellent table of all the UK FRSs so I wanted to keep that, although it's a long way down the new article. After I had started to write my article Morwen placed a merge tag on it - now my article is fully exapnded and correctly referenced I feel the above should re-direct, or it should be merged with the new more comprehensive article. I'm surprised you've restored the above - but I don't intend to redirect it again just yet until you've given me your reasons. By the way I have extensive expreience of the fire service in the UK going back 20 years, and have a detailed knowledge of all emergency service procedures. Thanks for reading. Escaper7 10:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that Fire Services in the UK is in line with article naming conventions. I don't doubt that you've done good work. But I think it would be better if you re-wrote the existing Fire brigades in the United Kingdom article rather than starting a new article. G-Man * 14:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bailrigg

You just beat me to it...! Aquilina 21:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help disambiguating

Hello, I've seen you've been editing UK related articles, and there is a current need to help disambiguate the term British. At Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, British is the disambiguation pages with the most links (by far), and ideally there should be no links to disambiguation pages. So if possible, please take a look at the links, and try to disambiguate the links to a more correct location. It's actually pretty easy, and most get disambiguated to United Kingdom. If we could get 10 or so people doing 50 links a day, we'll be done in no time. Thanks in advance , -- Jeff3000 03:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threat?

Is this a legal threat? Mrsteviec 19:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warwickshire map

I noticed you uploaded a version of the Warwickshire map that showed the bits taken from Glos, Staffs, Worcs, etc. You then reverted it to the old version? Was there some problem with the new version? Morwen - Talk 16:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry It's taken me so long to reply. I wanted to make some improvements to it, but then I forgot all about it. If you think It's ok then you can revert it back if you like. G-Man * 00:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

banbury population

hi there, on the article banbury you have changed the population from 50,000(est) to 42,808 twice now. I know that the census states that as being the official population but it really is much higher now, i used to banbury guardian article as a source because it stated as ten percent of the population as being inbetween 5 and 6 thousand. since the census a lot of growth has occureed in the town and although i cant cite and exact figure i am 99% sure that the population is 50,000 or more now. Thatperson 09:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I could see it said that between 5 and 6 thousand Polish immigrants had settled in Banbury, which would make the population 48-49,000, not over 50,000. I think we should try to find some official figures to back this claim up rather than relying on some local newspaper article. G-Man * 00:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wigan

Er no, Wigan is the historic town that gives the Metropolitan Borough its name. Two subs = one article, and other stubs (will be) collected and merged - as well as new information. QED Generic Character 19:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble is that's not the way things have been done anywhere else. G-Man * 19:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All found links, including "cats", have been redirected and updated. I was born in Wigan and currently live in Wigan Metro Borough. The linking matter is from the Coucil site. "Anywhere else" is a subjective quality, unquantified, and sets no president. Generic Character 19:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I've left comments at Talk:Metropolitan Borough of Wigan. MRSC • Talk 20:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bailrigg - Naming conventions (places)

I'm a little concerned with User:Bailrigg. This user is an emerging Naming conventions/historic county offender. I've left some stern words (again) at their talk page - I've noticed you have conversed with Bailrigg before about this too, and so was hoping you could advise and support on this issue. Jhamez84 23:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm watching the situation. G-Man * 23:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:CentroLogo.gif

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:CentroLogo.gif. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. _JD^talk 08:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The tag provides the rationale as it does at Image:Gmpte-logo.gif and Image:Nexus logo.png. G-Man * 22:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images need a detailed fair use rationale. If you're not going to add one to this image, please do not remove the {{no rationale}} template from it. _JD^talk 00:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am I dealing with an automated computer here?. You are clearly not listening to what I am saying. Why exactly have you chosen to pick on this one particular image, when as far as I can see hardly any images with the 'Logo' tag have the aforesaid rationale which you demand. Secondly the page which you quote has no examples of rationales for logos, and is therefore not much use. Thirdly is it not blatantly obvious what the rationale is? It is an image of the logo of the organisation in question displayed on the article about that organisation. How exactly could it be any more obvious what it's purpose is? G-Man * 19:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Stockport

Did you make a mistake when reverting me? I am trying to keep that list out of the article as I'm sure it's just filled with non-notable people from the town. Someone said they'd try and write it in a proper encyclopedic tone soon but I didn't like it when you just reverted me. :-( --Deskana talk 19:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I thought you had made a mistake by deleting a large section of the article. I don't think wiping out the entire section is a particularly good way of going about things. Perhaps it should be trimmed down to only notable people? G-Man * 20:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did consider that, but I found it very hard to seperate out the notable ones. --Deskana talk 20:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

prose vs lists

hi there, i was wondering why on many town discussion pages they say prose is better than lists. is this an official guildline or just WP:UKGEOG's opinion? it seems things like schools and parks should be lists because they are all linked to and it look neater, especially when they have long names. i ask because you are a member, hope you can get back to me, Thatperson 14:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is down to the discretion of the editor what format is used. Having an article which consists entirely of lists is certainly to be avoided if possible, but if a list is the best way to convey information, then by all means. Another possibillity is to use a table, which i've seen used in places. G-Man * 19:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Telford

Can you please explain your edit: (moved Telford, England to Telford: Primary subject, wrong disambig format)? Dddstone 12:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Telford in England quite clearly qualifies as the primary topic, judging by its size and the number of links going to it. So having Telford as a disambiguation page, is IMO innapropriate. Secondly if it were to be disambiguated the 'Telford, England' formula is wrong. The convention is to use ceremonial counties, which in this case is Shropshire. G-Man * 19:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was the right move on your part. Thanks for pointing me to the proper use and conventions. It's good to learn something once in a while. Dddstone 21:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:)

Thatperson has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Rugby and Kenilworth

Hi G-Man, I have just moved Rugby and Kenilworth back to Rugby and Kenilworth (UK Parliament constituency), reverting a previous move by you in November 2006, whch itself reverted a move by me in October. (There had been several other moves beforehand

This is per the convention agreed at WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies. The issue has been discussed at great length there, and a very clear consenus was reached in the end in favour of always using the "(UK Parliament constituency)" suffix, which is not just a disambiguator. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 16:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]