User talk:Jhamez84/archive5

User 80.193.169.137

Hi Jhamez. I have reported the behaviour of the above user to the admin board. I made mention of the personal comment they made about you further up your talk page. Thanks. Man2 15:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

Talk:Altrincham

Hi there. I'm sure you would have gotten around to it eventually, but I've been through the history at Talk:Altrincham and replaced deleted conversations. It was commendably bold of you to revert there, but you wiped out a whole month of discussions, plus the link to the archives and the to-do list and quality assessment fields, all of which have changed within the past month. Please take care in future. Thanks. — mholland 17:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

(Responses on my talk) — mholland 00:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Famous Wigan People

• Jhamez, what you have put is totally wrong. There is no such place as 'Wider Wigan', it's either 'Wigan' or it's 'Not'. Skelmersdale is in the Wigan Urban Area, Man2 wants to play this fact down and Skelmersdale residents would, probably, also want to play this fact down, because they are ninety percent Liverpoolers and are proud of their Liverpool roots. Wigan people dislike any Liverpool links (even though Wigan is, historically, linked more to Liverpool than Manchester). Leigh is in the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan, but Leigh residents would strongly contest being from Wigan. Residents of Golborne have, traditionally, regarded themselves as having Warrington links. I propose stating that most of the 'Famous Wigan People' are from/connected with somewhere within the 'Metropolitan Borough of Wigan' and should be in the respective article. No-one can deny the fact and it will have to be accepted. To regard towns as 'Wider Wigan' or 'Wigan Satellite Towns' is WRONG. I live in a town six miles from Wigan, in the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan, not in the Wigan Urban Area. If I wanted to live in Wigan, I'd move there. But I don't. 80.192.242.187 18:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

• Your reply to my, quite factual, message above is very arrogantly worded. I will say this, I know a lot more about Wigan folk, and Skelmersdale folk, than you do. I've lived amongst them for the last forty nine years, so it's not surprising, is it? All I'm trying to put to you is, how stupid is the person who claims to reside in, or 'come from' a place which they clearly don't? And, how naive is the person who tries to assert their views on others whose knowledge, of the subject in question, far exceeds that of themself? How often have I attempted to negate your views on your hometown? Wigan is Wigan, Oldham is not Rochdale? Let's keep the articles exact, that way everybody is happy. 80.192.242.187 22:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

PS.... Are you thinking that residents of Leigh, for instance, would introduce themselves as 'coming from' Wigan? And, no, I'm not anti-Wigan, I just don't like false statements.

Hi Jhamez, could I direct you to my post on JemmyH's talk page regarding the above point. Please be aware that the word 'Skem' is a local expression for Skelmersdale. Thanks Man2 01:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

Royton

You're welcome, Jhamez89. If you need anymore help, feel free to contact me. Michael 21:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've re-protected the page (for a longer period this time). Michael 23:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I should probably have told you, I've already added a warning template to User:Argol910's talk page. He removed and copied it to my talk page. I've asked User:Mike 7 if he wouldn't mind removing it. Watch out for the same happening to you! ~~ Peteb16 20:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

GB archive / GM

Definitely no archiving just yet. There may be dark forces at work who try to use anything as an excuse for an argument, so best leave it be until things settle down. I have loads of references for metropolitan counties existing after 1986, the quickest I can lay my hands on is HMSO, Aspects of Britain: Local Government, (1996) which specifically states that metropolitan county councils were abolished, but not the counties. I will dig about a bit more and comment on the talk page. MRSC • Talk 18:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Mendip Hills FAC

Thanks for your edits of Mendip Hills. I have now put it up as a Featured Article Candidate & comments, support or opposition is being recorded at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mendip Hills.— Rod ^talk 10:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Re Images - some of them were on the left, but if you see the comment of User:Nichalp on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mendip Hills, about having changed all the alignment to the right in line with WP:MOS - therefore if you want to rearrange them fine but i don't think I can.— Rod ^talk 12:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Chew Valley was largely mine and I know there are loads that do this - perhaps you would take this debate onto the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mendip Hills for wider debate & see if there are specific guidelines which would then need to be applied to thousands of other articles. — Rod ^talk 13:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Royton

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

With regards to creating single-purpose sock puppets to circumvent semi-protection on Royton, this is expressly forbidden, and considered a bad faith style of editting. Please desist from this. The article was protected by an administrator to halt your biased point of view vandalism. Consider this an explicit final warning to stop. Argol910 21:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Erm.... check the edit history of the article and your contributions - it kinda suggests you are in breach of these things and you are the single-purpose sock puppet (!).

We have one... two... three... a 3RR warning (which you have just cut from your page and pasted here)... and yes... four reverts within about 16 hours.

I intend to present this at the 3RR reporting page. Bye! Jhamez84 21:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

And it seems it worked - BLOCKED! Jhamez84 00:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Due to the continued sockpuppetry, I suspended the block and added an additional, longer one. Michael 01:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

re: White wolf of the Metropolitan Borough of Royton

Replied on some talk page somewhere... ~~ Peteb16 22:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Merseyside

Hello what makes you think that a history section should be the first on a county article. If this is some kind of official policy then I strongly disagree with it. It appears almost every county article violates this policy if it is one. G-Man * 22:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've seen many county articles where geography comes first. Personally I think this is more sensible. People are more likely to want to know about the geography of the place first IMO especially on articles about counties which have only existed for 30 years. G-Man * 22:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Reddish

Thanks for the compliments. I have held off the article a little, partly to try and get some 'distance' for a copyedit, partly to avoid accusations of WP:OWN, and partly to evaluate my jottings (User:Mr Stephen/sandbox). I think the article needs a paragrpah covering the closures of the cotton & engineering industries (I have most of the major dates) and a bit about the facilities provided by Stockport in the early 20th century. We are then into the esoterics: a section on transport, ie single paras on the canal and each of the three (!) railway lines, and sentences for the trams and the creation of the turnpike (just dates, really, here); the boundaries of the township were recorded long ago and mostly recognizable on the ground & maps; maybe a bit on the listed structures; a picture of some factory housing. It certainly needs a good copyedit and a new lead para from a fresh set of eyes. Anyway, glad you think it's OK. Regards, Mr Stephen 00:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Dive in, by all means. I must confess that I looked at Shaw & Crompton for ideas ... Regards, Mr Stephen 11:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's better. You raise a few points. I realise the article hops about a bit in places, but if you let me know which bits are hard to follow (and if it's because of my bad English or because the article suddenly assumes background information) then I'll try and clarify them. Now, the lead is mostly the article as it once existed, eg here, and this is where WP:OWN comes in. I think that the article was OK at the time, but as it matures the unreferenced subjective parts should come out. However, I didn't want to be seen as throwing away other peoples efforts and forcing the article into 'my' shape. I think we can safely say that comments about Alderley Edge and young people don't help much, and whilst Reddish Vale is an important green space, the greyhound kennels and the tea rooms are not particularly important (and the Vale has its own article anyway). If you can raise interest at the project to write a new lead, then go right ahead. Regards, Mr Stephen 09:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

General

Hi Jhamez, I have being taking a short break from editing for the past few weeks so I am therefore a little behind will any developments on the Gtr Manchester Project. Are there any issues/side projects of which I should be aware? How has the issue over Royton developed? I've taken a look at the Wigan article and I must again thank and congratulate you on the Gtr Manchester Map. It makes a great addition to the article. Thanks Man2 19:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

Tyne and Wear maps

It uses Template:Location map Tyne and Wear. The images is Image:Tyneandwear map.PNG. You might also be interested in Template:infobox Sheffield place which usesTemplate:Location map Sheffield which uses Image:Sheffield outline.PNG, Template:Location map Southampton (Image:Southamptonmap.png) and Template:Location map Edinburgh ([[Image:Edinburgh outline map.png). Pit-yacker 14:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ince

Hi Jhamez, it looks like Ince may be incorrectly placed on the map. The map appears to be showing the area around Ashton-in-Makerfield rather than Ince-in-Makerfield. Man2 00:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

• Hi, just taken a look at the Orrell article and it appears that the dot representing Orrell is a little too high. I would place it over the junction of the the M6 and M58 (this is the centre of the area). Thanks. Man2 00:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

• Jhamez, I'm sorry to just stick my oar in like this, but I saw your message regarding Ince in Makerfield being more than one mile from Wigan town centre. I can assure you that, in Wigan town centre, there is a river called the Douglas. It's across the road from the new 'Grand Arcade' development, in the town centre. If you cross the River Douglas, you are 'in' Ince in Makerfield. It's that close. Less than a mile?, in fact it's contiguous to Wigan town centre. 80.193.161.89 19:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)JemmyH.

Horwich

The current map of Greater Manchester looks awful. The red dot for Horwich isn’t even in the correct place. Obviously the Mancunian Sycophants love Greater Manchester and Manchester. Personally I despise Greater Manchester's name, which is still a contentious issue today, never mind when it was imposed without any consultation in 1974.
I feel the UK map showing Horwich in relation to the rest of the country is much better than the one “Wikipedia:WikiProject Greater Manchester” is being fostered at the moment.
I’d like to know what is wrong by using the UK map for Horwich? The pages about Cheshire or Lancashire places don't have a county map, they just use the UK map. Cwb61 15:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Stockport

Hi Jhamez, just been taking a quick look at the coordinates of the Gtr Manchester articles. In terms of the coordinates themselves most are ok, however on some of the articles, features such as motorways are not matching up in relation to the places themselves on the map, for example in the Stockport article, Stockport is depicted as being inside the M60 Ring Road rather than just outside of it. Thanks. Man2 17:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

• Stockport 'straddles' the M60 ringroad. 80.193.161.89 23:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

• Hi Jhamez, I was not aware that Stockport was on both sides of the M60. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Thanks. Man2 11:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

WikiProject England

Hello! You have probably noticed that WikiProject England has been inactive recently and I and other members are working on making it active again and getting more members to join. I am kindly asking for your help tagging articles for class and importance using {{WPE}}, their are literally thousands of articles at Category:England and all of its sub-categories which urgently need tagging ad your help is needed! For more information about theses templates please see the Project Page and I hope you are enjoying being a member!! Tellyaddict 21:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Gtr Man Map

I do like the inclusion of a UK micro-map. This may be useful to users outside the UK to give a geographic frame of reference (i.e. Gtr Man's geo-position within the UK). I would also certainly support the use of a map which shows the surrounding areas outside of Gtr Man. I think it is important to give as much information to the reader as regards where Gtr Man is in relation to the wider North West/UK, without drawing the focus away from the Gtr Man area. With this in mind I would lend support to the use of the map at the top of the article. Do you have any thoughts? Thanks.Man2 11:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

re "convert Infobox to Template:Infobox UK place using AWB"

you changed Gillingham (Kent), (no problem well done), but you put it in as a shire county rather than UA in an old shire county ;) Pickle 11:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Component Area to District?

Hi Jhamez, how do you feel about and standardisation of the descriptions of all the areas of every Metropolitan Borough in the UK (or just in Gtr Manchester). I noticed that the Urmston article begins with the phrase "Urmston is a district of the Metropolitan Borough of Trafford in Greater Manchester,". The use of the phrase "district of Met Borough of ######" I believe may solve the issues we have seen in the Wigan articles with the current phrase "component area". Have you any thoughts on this? Thanks. Man2 17:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

Hiya Jhamez, can I direct you to JemmyH's talk page regarding the above. I've posted an explanation on there regarding why I think 'district' may be a better intro. Thanks. Man2 19:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

Changing of Map

• That's better. 80.193.161.89 09:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

And, the 'spot' seems to be 'spot on'! (Ashton that is). 80.193.161.89 13:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

Re:Your vote to keep

My vote to keep the templates is not based on the fact that you have a new template. I like the new template. You are proposing to delete the old ones. They are not redundant many people have not naturally replaced them yet. I know that a hanful of editors intend to do this on mass, as the talk page indicates and a quick survey of UK places suggests. Until the use of the template stabilises the old templates are certainly not redunandant. Also the older are not clearly inferioir. In addition creating the new template is in the spirit of the old templates. To trully standardise you could simply all use {{Infobox City}}.

Now to the points you raised about consensus. (Note I hve read the current and archived disscussions in full, even though it was tedious and took some time.)

• Nearly all of the disscussion you pointed to are on the parameters of the template itself rather disscusion about the view that has been taken to replace the existing templates. The majority of comments about replacement with the new template are not in favour but against. However they are really too few to indicate in either direction.
• I don't think that 4 days is a reasonable consultation period. Its very short on a Wikipedia scale for a change.
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements doesn't even have a note on it about the new template even though its on the talk page a lot of editors that are just really interested in editing pages in good faith would go to.
• The template surving a TfD is not consensus to replace the template, it was not the prime reason for disscussion.

Although I will state again, incase you are in any doubt, that I am against deleting the four templated you are commenting on, I like the the new one. However, no consensus has yet been reached. I appreciate that this is difficult as responses so far are polarised. Changing over templates is being done before the consensus is reached to claim redundancy, WP:POINT. Ksbrown^talk 00:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You still do not appear to know what consensus is: WP:CON. If you trully had consensus you and a few other editors would not need to respond to each vote on the Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 18/Template:Infobox England place to discredit them. Please may I note that the method you are using to implement the new template is also very much against WP:OWN. Since I like the new template I hope it is adopted after it has been imposed. I will make no further comments on the matter as you will force them through on this wikipedia anyway as its how it generally works and it is a waste of my time which could be devoted to correcting the errors I keep finding in the converted templates. Ksbrown^talk 10:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Tyne and Wear dotty map

Jhamez, thanks for your work on the Tyne and Wear infobox map. Your efforts to standardise are appreciated. The map looks accurate, and the dot location appears to be working accurately. See here for a test: User:Elysium_73/maptest2. Elysium 73 15:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppss, I've just realise I forgot to reply, apologies for this! I really like the map, it clearly highlights the areas and I think we should consider using it on the aproppriate pages, thanks for your effort, it is really appreciated! Tellyaddict 16:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll leave some comments their shortly. Cheers! Tellyaddict 16:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

template:infobox UK place vs template:infobox England place

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Swinton, South Yorkshire, you will be blocked from editing.

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Rotherham, you will be blocked from editing.

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Rawmarsh, you will be blocked from editing.

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Doncaster, you will be blocked from editing.

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Mexborough, you will be blocked from editing.

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Maltby, South Yorkshire, you will be blocked from editing.

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Stainforth, South Yorkshire, you will be blocked from editing.

Replied. Jhamez84 03:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

try Template talk:Infobox England place. Concensus was keep, therefore I see no reason not to use it. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 14:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the Sheffield infobox. Please, try not to insert false claims where they do not exist L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 14:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is the consensus to keep? The TfD is still ongoing (Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 18/Template:Infobox England place). Jhamez84 should not have been accused of vandalism. Please see Wikipedia:Vandalism, in particular note that "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism". Adambro 15:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is the consensus to delete?

Please see:

About TFD's structure If the outcome for this discussion is keep or no consensus, then all templates will continue as they were If the outcome for this discussion is delete, then first all instances of the deleted templates will be replaced, and then they will be deleted. The purpose of this discussion is to determine whether or not the templates are worth keeping in the long run—and then implementing the solution. While the consensus should be enforced as soon as possible, there is no rush.

So, why are you deleting all templates from South Yorkshire articles without this consensus? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 16:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I would point out that I am not involved in removing the infobox, I am merely making comments on the issue based on what I have observed. Irrelevant of whatever the TfD says, you shouldn't just keep reverting the change without properly discussing it. I am not supporting the addition or removal of templates from the South Yorkshire articles, I suggest that neither should continue whilst the TfDs are still ongoing. It is however, your actions in accusing other editors of vandalism that has concerned me most. Apologies to Jhamez84 for continuing this discussion on their talk page. Adambro 17:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Notice As a courtesy, you may wish to note this item on the Administrator's Noticeboard.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

(Comment following on from Adambro's last point, above) I myself am not involved in the apparent "revert war" that seems to be happening, and I am also very concerned about the inappropriate use of the vandalism warnings that have happened. That is why I posted the message on the Admin's Notice Board asking for comments (link given in the Notice message, above this one) An admin person has commented that it is inappropriate to use the vandalism templates in this way. He also made a very useful point about ownership of articles (WP:OWN) that seems to be an issue underlying part of this.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Met Borough's

Hi Jhamez. Do you know how and why the administrative centres of the Met Boroughs were selected? Why was Oldham/Stockport and Wigan chosen to be the centres of their respective boroughs? What was the selection criteria? Thanks. Man2 23:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

Hi Jhamez, thanks for your help with the above question. It has to do with the fact that I am starting to believe that the Pemberton area is an area of Wigan (like Poolstock), rather than just an adjoining place in the Met Borough. There is a roadsign on Pemberton Road in the area which says 'Wigan' and nothing else. It is not the same sign found on the areas entering the Met Borough (which say Met Borough of Wigan). The sign is located within the Pemberton 'neighbourhood'. I believe that the population of 'Wigan' is around the 81,000 mark, not the 18,000 that JemmyH estimates (I have not seen a figure of 18,000 on any documents). I wanted to know what the selection criteria were for selecting the administrative centre because if JemmyH is correct, Wigan was not the obvious choice for the role. Better candidates would have been Leigh or Hindley (if JemmyH's Wigan estimates of 3 and half square miles and a population of 18,000 are correct)as both were bigger towns with bigger population's. Interestingly the GENUKI description we use in the article uses a description from 1828 (long before the 1904 joining of Pemberton with Wigan Borough). I believe that JemmyH may be referring to the historical boundaries of the town rather than the contemporary ones. I may well be very wrong on this point, however we need to evaluate it because we may have inadvertently used the wrong description in the articles. Thanks. Man2 12:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

Sorry, just a quick additional point about the above http://www.gmcro.co.uk/guides/gazette/gazframe.htm shows that Ince Urban District became part of the "Metropolitan Borough of Wigan" in 1974, as does the one for Orrell. The Pemberton description makes no mention of the area joining the "Metropolitan Borough of Wigan" in 1974, rather that it was simply joined with Wigan Borough in 1904. Thanks. Man2 12:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

Hiya, can I direct you to JemmyH's talk page regarding the above. Thanks. Man2 12:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

Hi Jhamez, I consulted the link you provided (visionofbritain.org). On this link it appears that 'town' and 'borough' were one and the same thing http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/types/status_page.jsp?unit_status=Borough. If Wigan was 'Wigan Borough' and Pemberton joined Wigan Borough in 1904 (it says that Pemberton's status as an Urban District was 'dissolved' in another article) then Pemberton became 'Wigan', just like Chorlton became an 'area' and part of Manchester. This would explain the roadsign saying simply 'Wigan' , it would explain the current population of Wigan and it would explain why Pemberton as a separate place (i.e. an urban district) was not joined with the new Metropolitan Borough of Wigan in 1974. Pemberton joined as an area of 'Wigan Borough' which was 'Wigan', therefore today Pemberton is an area of 'Wigan', not a district of the Metropolitan Borough. Man2 18:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

I suspect that the 1904 reorganisation intended to amalgamate areas very close to the towns and cities into their respective towns and cities too lower the number of Urban Districts in the country. I think JemmyH may be misreading the term 'borough' to mean what it means in a contemporary sense (i.e. a group of places grouped together for administration) rather than the old 'Borough' which referred to a 'town'. Man2 18:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

Just taken a look at Wikipedia's definition of a borough in History of the English borough. The intro includes the phrase "Borough is a term for a town, formerly denoting a unit of local government in England and Wales". It very much looks to me like we had all missed the fact that the old Wigan Borough was in fact 'Wigan town' itself, not a grouping of places around Wigan. It definitively looks to me like Pemberton is an area of Wigan. Man2 18:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

South Yorkshire map

Could you make one for the template:infobox Sheffield place, including al of the Sheffield city region as defined by Moving Forward: The Northern Way. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 12:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to consult the Project Lewis. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 17:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

West Midlands map

I have created a West Midlands map here Template:Location map West Midlands. The test here shows it needs a little bit of fine tuning yet, however. However, I scan through West Midlands WikiProject suggests some bits are missing from the first iteration anyway? You fine tune basically by adjusting the long/at that the edges of the map exist at. I can add it to the UK Infobox if you are happy Pit-yacker 17:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion for the Urban Area - how about the ONS's Urban Area maps? They have a faded background of the road network to assist with locations, though the political boundaries are missing. They are:

• North West, including Wolverhampton
• North East, including Walsall
• South West, including Dudley
• South East, including Birmingham and Solihull

I'll dig the ones out for the GMUA and add those to the relevant page too. Fingerpuppet 21:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

A Question

Why are you not using Image:Greater Manchester outline map with UK 2.png on GM articles? That one seems to have been more popular. G-Man * 19:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hands up who would like a new map?

Regarding your comments that User:Captain scarlet is "a fantasist and a bully". Whilst not condoning his behaviour, I must remind you of the policy of no personal attacks. Please consider this as a warning. Adambro 21:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Your Wigan Population Edit

• Jhamez84, I would point out that your edit to Wigan, regarding it's population is WRONG. The 'verifiable source' which you have used is the 'verifiable source' which I provided, after taking the time to consult the planning office of the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan in person, obtaining that source direct from that office. 'That source' gives a figure for 'Wigan North' and 'Wigan South' as being ..... Wigan North 35,932 and Wigan South 37,252. These figures represent the population of Ince in Makerfield, Aspull, WIGAN, Pemberton, Winstanley and Orrell (Wigan North added to Wigan South). The 'boundary' between Wigan North (which contains Wigan) and Wigan South (which contains Pemberton) is the River Douglas. I say again, the Wikipedia article with 'Wigan' as it's subject, should contain information about 'Wigan', without giving misleading population figures. 'Wigan', the 'Metropolitan Borough of Wigan' and the 'Wigan Urban Area', being different entities with differing population figures, each having it's own article. The Planning Office spokesman pointed out that 'no official population figure for Wigan itself has been taken' and therefore, 'an estimate would have to be taken from Wigan North, which contains Wigan, taking into account housing density'. Using anybody's maths. this makes the population of Wigan less than 35,932. Obviously. And a verifiable citation has been provided showing this. Locals may well 'think' that they all live 'in' Wigan, however, personal opinions have no place here, Wigan and Pemberton do have defined boundaries. 80.193.161.89 10:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

Regarding the above, the issue of Pemberton joining 'Wigan Borough' (i.e. town) in 1904 still happened. Wigan MBC's website says that Wigan 'Town Centre' is present in both Wigan North and Wigan South townships. If this is incorrect than I am going to contact Wigan MBC regarding incorrect info on their website. Until then however we must stick with the sources that a variable now (i.e. Pemberton part of 'Wigan', the 'Wigan' population just over 81,000 etc etc). If (and its a big 'if'), Wigan MBC change their website, then we can change the articles. Any thoughts? Thanks. Man2 10:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

• Just to inform you that I 'disagree' strongly. The 'verifiable source' provided clearly displays contrary facts and figures to Man2's claims. The verified source, as displayed, should be regarded as true. In any case, the verified source displayed DOES NOT show the figure claimed, it shows the population for ALL THE SURROUNDING AREA as being 73,184 (Wigan South 37252 + Wigan North 35,932 = Wigan, plus all it's surrounding townships, 73,184. You couldn't make it up! 80.193.161.89 12:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

Hiya Jhamez. I must say I'm not sure why Pemberton is shown in as large a font as Wigan on Google Maps! The problem with governments (especially local government,), is often one section of a department has no idea what another section is doing!. Therefore someone at Wigan MBC will announce that Pemberton joined 'Wigan Borough' (i.e. town) in 1904, so therefore became part of 'Wigan', whilst someone else will produce an article which makes mention of Pemberton 'town centre'. I hope the question of 'Wigan' does not become basically unanswerable because of a lack of coordination at Wigan MBC. Only time will tell. Thanks. Man2 13:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

To be honest that may have to be the solution until overwhelming evidence is found one way or another. I have contacted Wigan MBC to clarify the situation and asked them to provide verifiable source's in any response they make to me, unfortunately JemmyH never does this so we are unable to accept his evidence at the moment. I am 100 per cent convinced that the 1904 joining of Pemberton to Wigan Borough makes the area a part of Wigan, not just the Met Borough, however it could very well be proven that I am wrong on this. The evidence as it stands certainly appears to support my hypothesis, however we must recognise that we could all be analysing the evidence incorrectly and, in fact, JemmyH is correct. Once all of the evidence is compiled and only verifiable sources are given, then we can make a determination one way or another. Thanks. Man2 13:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

Sorry Jhamez , it was me that removed the 'Districts of Greater Manchester' tag from the Pemberton article. Thanks. Man2 13:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

• Thanks for the contact, in which you say ..... 'Just a line that personal e-mails (regardless of who they are from) won't constitute as reliable sources I'm afraid, as they have not been published....'

However, what are you talking about Jhamez? You then go on to tell me .... 'Local history books, primary local government act material, gazetteers, and county borough directoraries would be the best places for sources.' .... THESE are the places I HAVE got my information from, and YOU continually support other editors against my VERIFIABLE SOURCES! The e-mail add. was only shown as part of the message, from the Wigan South 'township manager', who happens to be the editor of a section of Wigan Metropolitan Borough Councils website. AGAIN, my source for the population figures came from the Wigan Councils 'Previously Published', now archived, material. Wigan Councils 'Published' material says that 'Wigan' is within the Wigan North township! I haven't made it up! AND, I don't know who has put it in the article, but Wigan has never been a 'mining town'. Coal mining was, purely, carried out in surrounding townships. There are no coal deposits, of any quantity, under Wigan due to heavily faulted strata on both sides of the town. 80.193.161.89 17:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

Hiya Jhamez, regarding the Wigan township issue again (sorry), I'm a little unsure about the following. The area of Poolstock in Wigan (the area near Wigan Pier) is indisputably 'in Wigan'. If JemmyH's assertion that "the town of Wigan is wholly within Wigan North township", how does he explain the following from the Wigan MBC website? (note the last place listed at the top of the page) http://www.wigan.gov.uk/Services/CommunityLiving/Townships/WiganSouth/ Man2 19:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

• • Pemberton IS a township in it's own right. It has BOUNDARIES, clearly defined, it is named PEMBERTON and has been for hundreds of years. It is in the same BOROUGH as Wigan, this has never been denied but a borough is not, as you say, a 'town'. A borough is a place with it's own council which administers over itself. A town is a large place with many people living there, a centrally located shopping area, A bank, a post office, a few pubs and a parish church, just like Pemberton. 80.193.161.89 20:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.