User talk:Jhamez84/archive3

Question

• I notice that you have contacted Regan123 regarding 'Notable Businesses', and 'Notable People', and you refer to, what you call, 'disruption'. You have also mentioned 'edit wars' in relation to the Wigan article. Can I now ask what your opinion is, regarding this? Would you think it better, more encyclopaedic, so to speak, to fill an article with 'what the locals believe', or to show true facts? I refer to the Wigan articles 'disruption'. The 'Notable Businesses' in the Wigan article are not actually in Wigan, they are in neighbouring Pemberton, so should be shown as being in Pemberton. The 'Notable People' are not all from Wigan either, no matter what the locals may like to think. I must also say, to copy information from 'citeable' sources does not always prove to be the correct mathod. Wigan MBC websites have been taken as being citeable sources, by Regan, when they contain many 'stretched truths'. 80.192.242.187 20:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

• Thanks for your prompt reply. I am from the Wigan area, but not Wigan itself. I live near to Haydock Park racecourse. I have a lot of connections with Wigan, however, having owned and built properties there and run businesses there in the past. You will notice that Regan has already posted this .... 'People who were either born or brought up in Wigan, or have had some significant connection with the town during their life, include:', above the notables on the Wigan article, which, to my mind, leaves it wide open to include people from all over the world who have any connection with Wigan. Other articles are only listing people born and resident there. I think it's very hard to come to a compromise as you can't please all of the people all of the time. As soon as anything is posted on the Wigan article, that is not to their liking, the natives get very restless!

I have actually been in contact with Wigan Council's 'History Shop' regarding some of their false claims. Even after they have had confirmation from Marks and Spencer's PR Manager, that Marks and Spencer are NOT a Wigan company and was NOT born/founded in Wigan, they continue to promote the claim. What I find amusing about it is the fact that Wigan people believe it! 80.192.242.187 22:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

• Hi! Don't be thinking that Wigan 'Borough' is Wigan, because it's not. 'Wigan Borough' contains Wigan and Pemberton. The 'Metropolitan Borough of Wigan' contains Wigan and Pemberton (Wigan Borough) along with numerous other towns and villages. But that is only a 'political' or 'administrative' way of looking at it. Places still retain their individual name, no matter which council is in charge and Wigan is not Pemberton, Ince in Makerfield, Golborne, Leigh, Astley etc.

I will have a try, later, to register. 80.192.242.187 16:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

UK geo sections

Hi. Sorry I haven't got back to you about this, I've been unusually busy. I've had a glance and this seems reasonable. Some of the sections are not neccasarily exactly the titles I would use, but the sections are broadly right. I'm concerned about London articles as "geography and adminstration" is not going to work all that well as the last set of local boundaries/administrations were abolished in 1899 or 1965. It is better to think of them as more fluid "districts" than "settlements". MRSC • Talk 12:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Help with Wigan articles

Hi, just wanted to offer my assistance to you (or any other editors working on the Wigan articles). Im a resident of Wigan and have worked on several of the articles in the past. I am glad to offer help in any way I can. Im aware of the problems everyone has been having with the articles recently but think they are now slowly coming together. Thanks. Man2

Lancaster University

Why do you want UK replacing by England on this article? The UK is the legal country known by everyone around the world. Are you some kind of English nationalist? Just asking, as I have seen a lot of changes such as this by an anon editor recently. --Bduke 22:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, but is there a WP guideline on using England before UK? I keep a watch on Lancaster University as I was on the staff there in the early days. --Bduke 23:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Stockport

I have reverted (diff) some of the changes you made to the Stockport article, as the new version didn't seem cosistent to me. I have posted a little more at the talk page. Regards, Mr Stephen 09:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, it's out old friend the boundaries at work again. The bit I struggled with was Stockport forms part of the Stockport parliamentary constituency, as Reddish has been part of Stockport for some time and is not in the Stockport constituency. I think the version I reverted to was accurate and unambiguous, but there may be some mileage in moving it to another article (but that would require another section to be written for here). Regards, Mr Stephen 14:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Constituent Country vs UK debate

Hi. Thanks for your message. Unfortunately, no real decision was made regarding the future of the debate. It was sort of 'dropped' because we weren't really getting anywhere. I think it has stopped the edit wars which were occuring, basically meaning that neither one or the other would get constantly changed.

Personally I am still using the county + country if necessary (it depends on the article), sometimes I will use UK as well. Basically I always use the county, and never use UK on its own. This seemed the comprimise from the 'sensible' users and I know that User:Mammal4 and I still stand by that.

Best wishes,

Mdcollins1984 10:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. I noticed in reading some of your talk issues a problem with Lancaster University. I believe you are absolutely correct in trying to change this article - especially as it only has Town/city, UK. It should at the very least have the county in place. Anyone looking at the article would have very little clue as to the location of Lancaster. Have you got a link for the UK Geography guidelines? I'd be very interested in taking a look. I think I'll change Lancaster University and see what happens!

Mdcollins1984 15:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Altrincham

Jhamez84, the matter of including the fact that most Altrinchamians put Cheshire in the address has already been settled. It is perfectly within the rules of Wikipedia and in fact enhances the quality of the article. There is unlikely to be any citation noting this fact as only locals will know this and it is not exactly something that people will write about.

I am asking you now to stop changing this on the 'Altrincham' article. Further enforcement of your own personal opinions rather than abiding by Wikipedia rules will force me to issue you with a vandalism warning. I hope it doesn't have to come to that. RRJ 18:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, Jemmy here. I noticed this comment regarding Altrincham residents using 'Cheshire' as their postal address. I cannot, of course, comment on what the 'majority' do, but, I have two friends in Altrincham (adjacent to Dunham Forest golf club), one in Bowden and two in Sale (who, ironically, live on the banks of the River Mersey, so why aren't they in Merseyside?) who all insist strongly that they are 'in' Cheshire and also use 'Cheshire' as their postal address. Check out the 'Sale, Cheshire' article for a similar argument. You see, it's all a matter of belonging to 'The Cheshire Set'! 80.192.242.187 23:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

Civil2 Template on User_talk:62.30.37.49

I'm not smart enough to know what's wrong with the template you placed on User_talk:62.30.37.49 but it's broken. I assume it's something about civility, which I can certainly understand seeing his edits, though I have to say the person he's arguing with is enough to send anyone over the edge. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 23:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

(To Jhamez84) That template doesn't exist, I'd recommend template:uw-npa1. Increase the number as you see fit, it goes up to 4. Check this page out for loads more WP:UTM. ~~ Peteb16 01:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

One to watch

User:Mossley10 has an editing style which looks suspiciously familiar. G-Man * 18:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Orrell

Hi Jhamez. I am currently working on the Orrell (Wigan) article and would be grateful if you could take a look at the article and suggest any areas you feel need improvement and get back to me with them. I am going to make a concerted effort to get all of the Wigan articles (of which there has been so much trouble), up to a good standard a.s.a.p. and would again be grateful of any help both you and Regan123 could give me. Thanks. Man2 13:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Man2

Hi Jhamez. Thanks for your post. I'm sorry for the change of intro, I should have informed you of the change first. I agree I'm not altogether happy about using a Wigan Rugby source either, the problem with have with this is a problem that appeared at the latter end of last year. The issue of Wigan's suburbs is one that brought about debate between the editors back then and the phrase "area and residential suburb" became the accepted definition. The Orrell area is contiguous to Pemberton. The area extends a good distance to the east of the M6 and the boundary is marked only by a small street sign. The Ince area on the east of Wigan is the same, it is contiguous to the town of Wigan, again a street sign being the only distinguishing feature. To drive from Ince to Orrell, through Wigan and Pemberton, you would be unaware of any change of district. Orrell now is a residential overspill of the town of Wigan (as is Pemberton and Ince). I contacted Wigan MBC at the latter end of last year to request a definition of the status of Orrell. I was informed that the council define the area as "a component part of the Borough of Wigan" and a "component area of the built Wigan Urban Area". The area no longer resembles a village in any sense and it not defined by the council as such, hence the difficulty in definition. To all intents and purposes the Orrell, Pemberton and Ince areas are now suburbs of the town of Wigan. I will strive to find a more suitable source than the one provided. Thanks again.Man2 23:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Man2

Hi Jhamez. Sorry to post again so soon!. The Orrell area is west of Manchester (about 19 miles) not 10 miles north east. Thanks Man2 23:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Man2

Hi, yeah I'm completely fine with the using either "Orrell is a component area of the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan" or "Orrell is a component district of the Met Borough of Wigan" either does appear the most encyclopedic. We will need to change to either of these descriptions for all of the other areas of the borough. If you are happy with that I think we should go along with it. Man2 23:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Man2

Hi, me again! Just notice we may have a problem with the population figure. The census (2001) appears to be for the "ward" of Orrell, not Orrell itself. You will notice that the area to the east of the M6 is not included on the 'area map' even though it is part of Orrell and the map includes areas such as Billinge Higher End. These areas (as with the township) are in "Orrell Ward/Township" but are separate areas of the borough. I think the population figure may be much smaller for Orrell itself. Thanks Man2 23:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Man2

To be honest I was hoping you could direct me as to the next step. I'm still a relativity novice editor and I'm extremely grateful for the help you are giving me. I know that the Pemberton and Ince areas were disputed by others in regards to the suburbs issue, so we may need to raise the issue on the talk pages of the respective articles and get the consensus first. Have you any thoughts on this?. Thanks. Man2 23:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Man2

The 'area map' appears to omit areas that are Orrell and add areas that are not Orrell. This has me believing that the census was for 'Orrell ward' which like the Orrell/Winstanley/ Higher End 'township' is a group of areas for administration purposes, not the areas themselves. The Orrell area includes the area to the east of the M6 directly adjoining Pemberton, the northern section (on the north of the M58) referred to as '0rrell Post' and the south area (the area to the south of the M58) as far as Orrell Water Park. The area is not as big as appears on the 'area map'. Man2 00:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Man2

Thanks for all your help and suggestions, I really appreciate it. As a resident of Wigan I'm hoping to get the article's up to a good standard with the minimum of disagreements/edit wars etc etc. I'll make a concerted effort to improve the source quality and quantity in the coming months and hope you can continue to lend a hand. Good work on the Shaw and Crompton article by the way!. I'd ask you to take a look at the 'Billinge Hospital' article and talk page and mediate between myself and the unregistered user 80.192.242.187 (JemmyH) on the issue of the hospital's status as the principle maternity facility for the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan. I added a citation from the Wigan MBC website that stated that the hospital was the "home to the borough’s maternity hospital" see: http://www.wigan.gov.uk/Services/CommunityLiving/Townships/Orrell/. The unregistered user contests this suggesting it was also the maternity facility for the Met Borough of St Helens and part of West Lancashire ,but does not provide a citation. Thanks Man2 00:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Man2

• Citations do not exist for this sort of petty quarrel. It is a case of 'common sense' that should prevail here. I have said elsewhere that the NHS does not work on names of towns or boroughs etc. but on areas of population density. Billinge Hospital was strategically placed to serve an area. Whether it be Wigan, St.Helens, Skelmersdale, it was regardless to the NHS. The hospital was for serving an 'area' not a town, or a borough. 80.192.242.187 02:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

---

3RR

I must say that I don't agree with you that I am in breach of the 'Three Revert Rule' in respect of the Billinge Hospital article. I have NOT exceeded three reverts in twenty four hours, therefore am NOT in breach of the rule as is presented. 80.192.242.187 02:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

---

Billinge Hospital

Seeing as you have laid down a law relating to Billinge Maternity facility article, I must inform you this. The 'Metropolitan Borough of Wigan' extends as far as Salford to the east and as far as Warrington to the south. Patients from Salford end would not consider using Billinge Hospital for childbirth. Warrington had, and still has, it's own maternity facility and anyone at the Warrington side would use it. People who live in these parts of the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan still consider themselves linked to their home town ie. Salford and Warrington and, indeed, may never have been, or considered going, to Wigan. Patients from Wigan Borough (that's Wigan Borough, not the 'Metropolitan Borough of Wigan') would use Billinge Hospital. Patients from St.Helens (but not the extended end of the Metropolitan Borough, in the Liverpool area) would use Billinge Hospital. Patients from Billinge, Rainford, Carr Mill, Haydock, Parr, Blackbrook, Garswood, Earlestown (all within St.Helens Met. Boro. and all within 5 miles of Billinge Hospital) would have been referred there by their GP. My three children and all my family's children have been born in Billinge Hospital and all lived in the Metropolitan Borough of St.Helens (but not in St.Helens). The maternity facility was used by all registered 'general practitioners' in THE SURROUNDING DISTRICTS, it was NOT for the sole use of Wigan, it was the ONLY maternity facility in that AREA.

• What's more, the CITATION given by Man2 does NOT contain any reference to Billinge Hospital being the 'principal' maternity facility for, or being 'primarily' for the use of, the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan. It merely implicates that the hospital belonged to 'the borough' which, although it was within it, it did not 'belong to'. 80.192.242.187 20:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

Hi Jhamez, sorry to use your talk page for this matter. Parr, Rainford, Haydock, Blackbrook, Earlstown are not within 5 miles of Billinge Hospital by road at all. If you (or others) feel it is necessary to remove the phrase 'principle maternity facility' and replace it with 'maternity facility' please do so as I personally have no objection to this and am unaware of any objection from fellow editors at this time. The citation was intended to simply demonstrate that Wigan MBC (a valid and reliable source) considered Billinge Hospital the 'borough's maternity hospital'. I am more than happy for a citation to be included that suggests that St Helens MBC considered Billinge Hospital to be St Helens 'borough's maternity hospital' and if found it should be immediately included in the article. Thank you.Man2 00:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Man2

• But, and I have never denied this fact, Billinge Maternity Hospital WAS within the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan, NOT within the Metropolitan Borough of St.Helens. What I'm saying is, IT WAS THE PRINCIPAL MATERNITY FACILITY FOR IT'S SURROUNDING AREA, and PART of it's SURROUNDING AREA was NOT in the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan. It's very easy to understand. 80.192.242.187 11:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

• • • • Note ... Jhamez84, you may remove the notes from me after you have read them, so as not to clutter your talk page. The following is what I have put onto the Billinge Hospital discussion.....

• Jhamez84 .... I 'misinterpret' nothing. There are signs which tell you when you enter the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan. There are ALSO signs that tell you when you enter the Wigan Borough, within the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan (AND the signs say 'You are now entering WIGAN BOROUGH', not Wigan COUNTY, as you seem to think), I pass them daily. The Metropolitan Borough of Wigan contains TWO boroughs, the Wigan Borough AND Leigh Borough. They are both clearly signed for you to see. AND, I don't deny that Billinge Hospital WAS in the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan, it is a FACT that it didn't only serve the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan and it shouldn't be implied that it did.

I don't object to the inclusion of the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan on this article, in it's correct context ie. the hospital WAS within the Met. Boro. of Wigan. To say that 'Billinge was the Principal maternity facility for the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan' is misleading in a way that makes it seem that it was SOLELY for the use of the Met. Boro. of Wigan, which it wasn't and, in fact, was NOT the principal facility for ALL parts of the Met. Boro. of Wigan.

So, in a nutshell, the argument is about the 'wording' of the article, which should be clearly understood. The 'bottom line' fact of the matter is .... Although Billinge Maternity Hospital actually stood within the Met. Boro. of Wigan, it's services extended to ALL of it's surrounding areas and it was the PRINCIPAL maternity facility for these surrounding areas. 80.192.242.187 12:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

Tyne and Wear

Hello! I noticed you often edit articles which relate to North East England, so we at WikiProject North East England would like to invite you to become a member of the WikiProject. We work on creating, expanding and making general changes to North East England related articles. If you are interested in joining, feel free to visit the Project Page.

• Hi there, thanks for the quick reply! If you do want to join please consider putting your name down Here but this is compleely optional. Your right, the Tyne and Wear article does need a lot of work doing to it, especially that list of places near the bottom so I think thats the highest priority of the project at the minute to clean that up and put in a table. If you are serious about creating a WikiProject for Greater Manchester I too would love to help out! I only created WP:T&W three days ago so it's still very new, you may wish to propose the Propose the new Project here. Thanks and happy editing....Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 10:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Military of England

I'll happily abide by rule of not including a military section into the England article when the Scotland article does the same. Somethingoranother 23:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Watch out on your reverts of England - although there appears to be a consensus, be careful not to violate WP:3RR - there are other editors watching this. RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 00:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, You have violated the 3 Revert rule on England as shown by the page history. As this seems good faith and unintentional I am not going to report it even though I should and I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, please be careful with reverting article edits as some other users may not be so understanding and may instantly report you, however as mentioned above, I'm not going to this time.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 21:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

the Trust

It is most definitely not a reliable source for WP. A quick look at some of the documentation, and they have invented a new term - ‘Section 59(2) counties'. Let us hope they don't start a WP article on it! MRSC • Talk 07:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Baginton

Your edit to add an info box to the "Baginton" page is appreciated. Can an photograph be added and shown inside the box. Snowman 23:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Royton

The information I have added to the politics section is fully referenced and accurate. I would appreciate it being left there, since the rise of the BNP in Royton has been the most prominent political shift in Royton over the last thirty years and has even been commented upon on political issue shows. Its removal is censorship since the politics section will then no longer be a true reflection of the political issues in Royton. I would very much like to know how this section contains a 'point of view' statement since every fact can be verfified in the link I have supplied. I have made this even more explicit by linking to each section. I will take this to higher authorities if I have to and have your account suspended.

Wiki Project

Hi Jhamez, thanks for the nod toward the project. I have added the 'to do list' to my user page but am I little unsure how to add my name!. As regards the Orrell article, I've not been able to give much time recently to improving the source quality/quantity but hope to do so in the coming months. What is the procedure for adding pictures to the article (i.e. copyright etc)? I have found several on the net which I feel would improve the article. I'll post the links to your talk page before I put them on the article to give you a chance to add your thoughts on them. Thanks again. Man2 12:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Man2

Royton Mill

If you were the person who added something about Royton Mill to Cotton Mill, could you please look at the article, as I have amended it. I fear that you gave excessive prominence to it. Are you really seeking to imply that a cotton mill was built there before Richard Arkwright built his at Nottingham and Cromford? Arkwright's patetn is usually seen as the beginning of powered spinning. If you have other information, you need to set out in more detail what you have discovered, citing academic sources. Modern newspaper journalists are often not a reliable historians. Peterkingiron 16:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Orrell/Wigan pictures

Hi Jhamez. Take a look at this link http://www.wiganworld.co.uk/streets/ . Its a collection of photos from streets/locations around Wigan. The site has loads of photos of Wigan (by that I mean the whole area) both past and present in the 'Gallery' section on the left of the screen. You can get a feel for what the northern section of the Orrell area looks like by navigating to the 'O' section of the alphabet on the top of the screen and then selecting 'Orrell Road' from the list. I would like to include the the photo of the Stag Pub (last photo) as you can see the 'Orrell Post' on the left of the picture behind the guy on the bike. I'd also like to include a photo of Edge Hall Road. Navigate to the 'Gallery' section on the left of the screen and select 'New Gallery'. On the list select 'Edge Hall Road'. ThanksMan2 02:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Man2

OL postcode area

OL postcode area - I've started this article. Your local knowledge is far superior to mine, please fill in the blanks. 09:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That is great! BR postcode area has maps but not much more else. I had access to stats for each postcode area but I forget where I put it! This would add interesting information to the articles. MRSC • Talk 18:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Your thoughts

Hi Jhamez. I have an idea regarding the wording of the intro's for the Wigan articles. I think the areas that are contiguous to Wigan (these being Pemberton, Orrell, Ince, Platt Bridge, Winstanley ) should start with the phrase "##### is a component area of the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan, Greater Manchester" and then include the phrase "##### serves as a residential suburb contiguous to Wigan", omitting any references to the previous status as town's or villages (i.e. Ince goes from 'small town' to 'component area', Platt Bridge from 'village' to 'component area'.) The area's of the borough that are separated from the conurbation (i.e. Standish, Shevington, Ashton, Hindley, Abram) should start with the phrase "##### is a village/town in the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan, Greater Manchester" and go on to include "##### acts primarily as residential area". I believe this will better reflect the status of the areas. Have you any thoughts on this? Thanks. Man2 15:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Man2

I object STRONGLY to this suggestion! This amounts to nothing more than taking away any individuality that any of these places may have. The 'suburbs' of Wigan are as follows, Swinley, Beech Hill, Standish Lower Ground, Springfield, Poolstock, Scholes, Whelley and Marylebone. They are all 'residential' areas 'in' Wigan. Standish, Shevington, Orrell, Winstanley, Ashton, Hindley, Ince, Abram etc. are not in Wigan although they are in the 'Metropolitan Borough of Wigan', along with Wigan. These places DO NOT act 'primarily' as residential areas at all, especially Ashton and Hindley. Don't forget, there are places in the same Metropolitan Borough which you haven't mentioned, ie. Golborne, Lowton, Leigh (bigger than Wigan), Atherton, Tyldesley, Astley, Aspull etc. all are NOT 'in' Wigan, but all are 'component parts' of the same Metropolitan Borough, which is a combined administrative organisation. Without the contributions of the small towns in the Borough, Wigan would not survive. Let's cut out the 'middle man', not mentioning Wigan, and call everywhere Manchester ?

Man, your suggestion, to Jhamez, only goes to highlight what I said earlier, your only intention is to promote the name of Wigan as much as is possible. 80.192.242.187 23:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

Have to agree with Jemmy on this one (the first part). Regan123 00:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Infobox UK place

Yes most definitely a replacement for all UK place infoboxes. The way I see it going is specific maps for large urban areas and conurbations (Manchester and London so far but others later - they are easy to add) and UK maps for any other places. MRSC • Talk 18:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

As it stands the infobox can provide both maps at the same. However, one of the goals was to try to use less space. The template allows for lots of regional variation, decisions about which maps to show can be made during the implementation, perhaps by a local wikiproject etc. The look-and-feel will still remain the same. Please do update the Manchester image. MRSC • Talk 18:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Manchester and Greater Manchester Urban Area

I find the Manchester page to be too biased and some users are only interested with getting another feather in Manchester's hat, even if it means taking recognition that really means to another place. Other (Manchester) users see the Greater Manchester Urban Area and Metropolitan County as nothing more than extentions of Menchester. I find their attitude to be offensive.
Can I add "while the wider Greater Manchester Urban Area has a population of 2,240,230, making it England's third largest conurbation after Greater London and the West Midlands." to all towns and local authorites in that Urban Area, or is that exclusive to Manchester? (Forgot to sign) JJC-IE 21:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an open encyclopaedia. It's hardly the pinnacle of truth. I've found it's best to take a pinch of salt for what is said. JJC-IE 00:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

dynamic manchester map

Hi - the dynamic mapping system is generally based around the {{location map}} template, and more detailed information is found there. I have personally only really used the London and UK maps, and they are very different from one another. As far as I can tell, there is no real set format, so long as it is clear where the location marker is pointing in the scheme of the map. I would personally like to see a greater degree of political boundaries represented, but that's just my opinion. DJR (T) 01:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Wigan

Hi Jhamez. You make a good point regarding the difficulty of explaining the borough's and local authorities. I am more than happy to accept the status quo of the article intro's if everyone is happy with how they are currently. I by no means intended to suggest I was going to push for the change and although I have to disagree strongly with JemmyH's perspective on the suburbs of Wigan, I feel that if removing the historic status of the areas from the articles intro 'robs' those areas of their identity, then yes, we would be wrong to do so. I can assure you that I had not intended to do so and would emphasize that it was merely a suggestion for everyone's consideration. If the majority are not in favour of the change then, of course, I accept the decision. On a lighter note I don't feel there is a 'Wigan Civil War' between myself and JemmyH!. Contrary to how it may occasionally appear I have a lot of respect for his knowledge of the local area and feel at times (like today) he raise's some excellent points. Did you get a chance to take a look at the Edge Hall Road/Orrell photos. ThanksMan2 01:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Man2