User talk:Jhamez84/archive6

Saddleworth

Thanks for your note. Great going on changing the map, it helps a lot; the old map would certainly be very confusing to an unfamiliar reader that might not be certain that saddleworth is a sizeable region.

As for other material, I have that The Saddleworth Story, and one other book called Victorian Saddleworth, unfortunately that's all as yet. I plan on going and buying some more in the near future, I really want to see the articles on Saddleworth improve as well. Featured article status might be a bit optimistic :P But I see no reason why it couldn't be Good Article status at some point in time. M A Mason 20:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Maps and 020

I see you've been doing great work with maps recently. Some of us less artistically able might have good reason to be jealous. I wonder if you could help with a map I think would really help the 020 (UK dial code) article? A map showing the 020 dial code area against the Greater London boundary would really improve this article. Here is a PDF that has the 020 boundary: [1]. As a guide, the 020 boundary in the east (and north of the river) is near enough identical to that between Barking & Dagenham and Havering. Many thanks. MRSC • Talk 07:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That is fantastic, exactly what I was looking for. The only thing that needs to be amended is the red area should touch the southern boundary of Greater London at Whyteleafe and it should be perfect. As for the flags, yes I'm not too bothered either. I daren't vote for fear of being accused of setting the whole thing up to achieve my hitherto clandestine aims. :) MRSC • Talk 13:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Perfect. It is a fine addition to the article. Another one that would be good (although no hurry) is London postal district against Greater London. As a guide in this case NW7 just touches the boundary and E4 goes over it to cover Sewardstone. E6 shares Newham's eastern boundary with Barking & Dagenham for most of its length except for the bit of E6 that sticks out eastward. MRSC • Talk 13:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow. It is scarily accurate down to the small parts of Bexley and Kingston that are included, great! I will look at the auto maps this afternoon. MRSC • Talk 05:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Silly Message from Jhamez

• Thank you for the reply, something you don't always do. I must say, have simply gone over the top with your capitals there. When I use capitals, I am merely stressing the 'importance' of one particular word, clarifying it's significance if you will, rather like using an 'outline marker'. All this childish 'text talk' about shouting doesn't figure in my book, sorry!

Now then, where were we? Ah.. I only pointed out that there is not a 'conflict of sources' in the Wigan population case. No source actually gives the population of Wigan, only the population of an area containing Wigan, along with other townships. Each area has been identified by an 'authority', for a particular purpose and, clearly, for the use of that 'authority'. My source which, incidentally, may be online material but I obtained it from the Wigan MBC planning office, shows the nearest population count to Wigan itself and Wigan's population was estimated at 18,000 by a Wigan MBC planning officer. The 'published' figure , for Wigan, Ince and Aspull, as 'verifiabley sourced' is only 73,184, so how on earth can Wigan's population be 81000 plus? 80.193.161.89 18:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

• Another message, to me, from Jhamez. And it says '.......Can you see why I am so frustrated with your continued chatter on my talk page? This has nothing to do with me.' .....

If it 'has nothing to do with you', why do you continually revert whatever I put onto any of the Wigan articles ..... Even though I back up my contribution with 'verifiable sources' ? (ie. Wigan MBC 2001 Census Results). Then you add that Wigan, which was always a 'Mill Town', was also a 'Coal Mining Town', which it was not. By doing this, you automatically make it 'something to do with you'! 80.193.161.89 21:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

• • • DO NOT CONTACT ME AGAIN WITH ANY OF YOUR 'SUGGESTIONS'! (yes, I did shout it) Also, DO NOT SPITEFULLY REVERT ANY OF MY EDITS if it has, as you say, nothing to do with you. 80.193.161.89 21:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

• What do you mean 'again no source'? The source is there, link number 2, read it and do some sums before doing any more of your 'spiteful reversions'. 80.193.161.89 22:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH

Your edits to Wigan

Please stop your edit-warring on Wigan. By my count, you have just passed 3 reverts in 24 hours, which is the maximum allowed under WP:3RR. A similar warning shall be given to the anon. Michaelbusch 22:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Replied. Jhamez84 23:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Award

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		For the great work on map images for our major cities and conurbations. MRSC • Talk 05:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Manchester map boundaries & Horwich

See Template talk:Location map Greater Manchester and User talk:Cwb61. Regards, Mr Stephen 14:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look at the West Midlands map. I've left Reddish alone to try and clear my mind of it. I'll take another look at it later, and then we can decide the way ahead. Regards, Mr Stephen 08:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Horwich map

You say the map Image:Horwich in Greater Manchester.png is awful! Well you made it, all I did was add the 'red dot' to show Horwich's true postion in Greater Manchester. I've noticed you've tailored the Image:Greater Manchester outline map with UK.png map for Saddleworth, Image:Saddleworth in Greater Manchester.png, yet if I tailor a map for Horwich, you nominate my map "for deletion as it is inaccurate and inconsitent with every other Greater Manchester settlement article". Double-standards I see it. It's fine for you but not for the rest. When were you elected for the Greater Manchester area, or for that matter for the whole country? I have as much right to edit as you are. Cwb61 (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I should have made it more clearer in the last post that I altered the Image:Greater Manchester outline map with UK.png with the addition of the 'large red circle' to show Horwich's position in the county from the map you created Image:Greater Manchester outline map with UK.png. You say the 'large red circle' doesn't cover an area of that size, you're right, Horwich covers a much larger area. Horwich's town and civil parish boundaries are the same, so if you take a look at Neighbourhood Statistics - Horwich Parish Headcounts you'll see the little map which shows Horwich's coverage and boundaries. Perhaps you could create one showing Horwich's town/parish coverage in the same way you did for Saddleworth. Then again perhaps not, others will want one too for their pages. In-text citations. A good part of the text I have created/edited and so I will find and cite those parts. Cwb61 (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Wigan and Pemberton

According to the sources I've consulted, Pemberton parish became part of the County Borough of Wigan in 1904 (rather than be abolished and absorbed). However, in 1920, the parish was abolished and its former area was absorbed into the Wigan parish. So from 1920 the Wigan parish and county borough occupied the same area (including Pemberton). I would say this is clear enough evidence that Pemberton has been 'part of' Wigan since 1920. MRSC • Talk 06:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jhamez, sorry that this point is about the above again! I think that enough evidence is around now (although I will be on the lookout for more) to confirm my theory about Pemberton. Until JemmyH is able to come up with conclusive evidence to the contrary I think the articles should be amended to reflect this change of status. Do you have objections/thoughts on this? As far as the point about Wigan being 3 1/2 sqaure miles in size. The source JemmyH used was from 1911, this does not reflect the present day size, which should also include the 4 1/2 square miles of Pemberton. Additionally the Orrell article needs to reflect that the area adjoins Wigan itself. Thanks. Man2 15:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

Runcorn (and Widnes)

Thanks for your comments on Runcorn and improvements to that article and to Widnes. I agree with your comments and will work on the civic history section but I'm not sure where to get the info on geology - any suggestions? Also I think the sentence on climate needs to be expanded. Widnes I fear requires a more or less complete re-write - when I get the time and the sources I will work on that. Also I think we need to have a demographics section in Halton (borough) to which both Runcorn and Widnes can refer (separate statistics do not seem to be held); I have a go at that too. Best wishes. Peter I. Vardy 09:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

South Yorkshire map

yes please! L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 11:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick pause mate - [2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lewisskinner (talk • contribs) 13:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for making this map. Unless you (or someone else) gets there first, I will have a go at working out how to implement it this evening (I am 6 hours behind UK time) or at some point over the weekend. —JeremyA (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheshire map

Thanks for the suggested map fopr the infobox. That would help a lot, I think. May be what is needed is an exmaple of how it would work on an infobox for a given place within Cheshire, so that it can be "sold" to the project? What do you think?  DDStretch  (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheshire Map created

I have created the Cheshire map at Template:Location map Cheshire. Some tests are at User:Pit-yacker/Sandbox1, and the callibration seems relatively accurate, although may need some more very fine tuning. Pit-yacker 16:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added a coup-le of extra example places to fine-tune it. Malpas is a place in the south-west of the county, and so a good extra place to choose. The other one is a key one for fine-tuning: Mow Cop. It must straddle the county boundary between Cheshire and Staffordshire, and so it can be seen that the map needs "stretching" a bit to the east. (I also re-checked and made the wikipedia entry for Mow Cop to have maximum precision for its latitude and longitude, with the marker placed exactly on the county boundary on the high street of the village where the county boundary then veers off the high street.) Thanks for the help. I think this will look really good.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Have tried again per the cleverer method. Seems more precise but not sure whether there is any further fine tuning that can be done? Pit-yacker 21:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Malpas is now just outside the county boundaries when it should be a bit inside, and Mow Cop is in Staffordshire when I deliberately got the lat/long data to place it exactly on the county border (on the High Street), so I think some further tweaking is required. it seems to me that the southern parts of the map are displaced downwards. I'm not sure how to do the tweaks, however.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Sheffield

I have a couple of comments regarding the Sheffield article. I noticed that you changed the aesthetics of the infobox. This infobox dates from the time when there was a City of Sheffield article, and so it follows the same form as the one on City of Leeds etc... Is it your intention that all of these articles should have their infobox changed also? Secondly you changed 'north of England' to 'South Yorkshire'—previously we had an almost edit war with the traditional counties folk about using South Yorkshire. North of England was a compromise that seemed to satisfy all parties (apart from a stubborn few who insist that Sheffield is in the Midlands). —JeremyA (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

So should articles like Metropolitan Borough of Rotherham get revamped too? Regarding calibrating the map—I did it by creating an overlay in Google Earth; the whole thing took less than 5 minutes. If this is more efficient than the method that others have been using I can write a short description of how to do it. —JeremyA (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sheffield districts

Seeking some sort of compromise regarding Sheffield districts I have been playing around in my sandbox with various maps and the UK place infobox. I wasn't really aware that there was a Sheffield place infobox until people started arguing about it, and in fact I was happy for these articles to not have infoboxes. However, Sheffield place was created, and it has now been deleted, and the reason given for deleting it was that it has been superseded by the UK place infobox. With that in mind I have been trying to see how the UK place infobox would be used in an article like Millhouses. The main problem that I have found, and I suspect the reason why the deletion of the Sheffield place infobox was resisted is that the UK place infobox has way too much information for an article like Millhouses. Within this article it would certainly be desirable to show where Millhouses is in Sheffield and to provide the coordinates of the centre of the district, but much of the rest of the information provided by the infobox is just too much (in my opinion) for an article of this nature—Millhouses is not a former village that has been annexed, it is just a suburb so it has no official identity beyond being a part of Sheffield (for example, I don't think it would be possible to quote the population of Millhouses). Therefore, what I would like to show is only information that differs between this district of Sheffield and others: that would be the ward that it is part of and the westminster constituency (and possibly also postcode information—although I think that that verges on infomationcruft).

It looks to me like 'UK place' was intended to be a fairly flexible infobox. So I have been able to construct a minimalism version of it at the bottom of my sandbox. There are a couple of things that I don't like about this: 1-I would like 'City of Sheffield' to be in the title, above 'Millhouses' and in a larger font size. 2-I would like to include the ward. 3-I would like the 'list of places' at the bottom to link to Districts of Sheffield rather than List of United Kingdom locations. Are any of the above possible? Thanks, —JeremyA (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have visited the issue of Sheffield districts many times. One of the first things that I did when I started at Wikipedia was try to work out the best way to write about the districts. The main problem is, and this seems like a strange thing to say, most of them don't really exist. Now, of course they do exist, but I have overheard, or sometimes even been involved in, conversations where people who have lived in Sheffield all of their lives argue over whether X street in in P or Q district, and even whether a given district actually exists or is a sub-part of another district. At the suggestion of another editor I started looking into the wards, and I found a useful section in the City council website. Here they provide maps detailing ward boundaries and state which districts are in which ward (you are correct that some districts are split between two wards). To me this enabled us to write much better articles, without the need for original research. I therefore grouped the various district stubs into 28 ward articles. However, over time it has been successfully argued that some districts do have more of their own identity and should be written about in individual articles. So that is why we have what we have today. However, I still sort of regard the ward articles as parent articles for the districts.

Regarding some of your specific points. Figures for population total and density would (as far as I am aware) be impossible to get for the districts—I am yet to find evidence that they have any official (or even non-official) boundaries, so how would such figures be calculated? I have looked through other articles (such as the Greater Manchester ones), and to be honest I think that a lot of the information that is included is surpass to requirements. If someone were to add a list of local shops to one of the district articles I would remove it on the grounds that Wikipedia is not a directory or an indiscriminate collection of information. To me, fire, ambulance and police information falls under a similar category—is that really encyclopedic information? I also see no need to baby the reader by duplicating information that is easily found in other articles—if someone wants to find out something about Sheffield let them look in the Sheffield article; that's what I and others, wrote the Sheffield article for.

So, that turned into a long ramble about nothing in particular. I guess that I question using the 'one size fits all' approach within the UK, in much the same way as you question WP:CITIES using it worldwide. If you've got this far, thanks for reading —JeremyA (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to drop in, but could I direct you both to Template talk:Infobox UK place#Suburbs where I have suggested a possible solution for the whole of the UK? Regan123 23:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Lists of places

Yes I agree with what you are saying about lists. I'd like to see either:

District	Places
A district	A place, B place, C place, A place, B place, C place
B district	A place, B place, C place, A place, B place, C place

OR

Place	District
A place	F district
B place	A district
C place	D district
A place	F district
B place	A district
C place	D district

Probably the first option as it is an economic use of space. If we want to add more details later (like I have for List of places in London) we can move to option 2, but it is a huge amount of work adding more details. MRSC • Talk 05:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This is probably the basic standard we should be looking to get articles up to: List of places in Kent. MRSC • Talk 06:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

If we can get the GM and London ones up do a decent standard they can be used to 'showcase' how the others should look when fully complete. The Kent list is good to show the 'minimum standard'. MRSC • Talk 19:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland map

I thought I'd reply to you here because I just noticed your message and I wanted to tell you that I've been working all day on getting an image for the template! I'm wondering if a PNG is the right way to go - its not a format I'm familiar with. Anyway - the image I've chosen to try out first is a nice free satellite image of Ireland that I've trimmed down to Northern Ireland. As it stands, it is 3,358 by 2,747 px. I don't know if that's too big or not, so I'll probably resize it with Irfanview or Photoshop (any recommendation between the two for resizing?) and then upload it for testing purposes.

Check my contribs in a while if you're online, and you should see it. You can tell me what you think then. I might try a jpg first, just to get to grips with the calibration thing. I have a couple of other images too. We could exchange if you like. Have you got email available here? I haven't switched my email option on here. --Mal 00:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved pages

I know you haven’t got anything to do it, but someone has badly moved the article from ‘Barton Aerodrome’ to ‘City Airport Manchester’. It seems that they have cut and pasted the text article from ‘Barton Aerodrome’ to a new page ‘City Airport Manchester’ but didn’t move the history. At first I thought ‘Barton Aerodrome’s talk page’ hadn’t moved properly to City Airport Manchester page, I did that, but then when I corrected a minor punctuation in the article and checked its history I realised things didn’t work out. If I tried to fix it I’d end up making an even more of a mess. Could you please sort this problem out? Cwb61 (talk) 06:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It's ok, the problem has been fixed. Cwb61 (talk) 18:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

UK-specific guidelines

Sorry, I was "otherwise preoccupied" and am only now able to reply to your message on my talk page about UK-specific guidelines arising from the report about Middlewich. I think they are needed, and probably quickly. The issues that to my mind need sorting out include listing all the different multiple roles the different kinds of entities covered in each guide could possess. for example, in UKCITIES, some are merely "elevated" civil parishes, others are districts in their own right, but not unitary authorities, and others are districts and unitary authorities. There may be more I haven't thought about for UKCITIES, but I hope you get the idea I'm thinking of here. It seems to me at first glance that these different roles need to be dealt with slightly differently in any article, and hence, have slightly different guidelines. One way of doing this would be to have a "core" set of information that all UKCITIES should possess, and then enhance this, or customize it, for each of the special cases we think exist (the three I've listed above, for example). This kind of approach should work quite well for the other UK guidelines as well. What do you think? I've just thought of the name for this type of approach: It is a "Modular Approach" to the articles and, hence, the guidelines.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Infobox UK place transclusions: where are these [figures] taken from?

I use AWB myself. Just do what transcludes a certain template and then filter out non-main-namespace. Pit-yacker 23:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Date links

Greetings!

Since one of my key interests here is copy-editing, I'm interested in understanding the rational for/against wikilinking years, like [[2006]]. The portions I've read from WP:CONTEXT guidelines isn't clear about this. Since you removed many of the wikilinks to years in the Nelly Furtado article, could you please help me understand the general guideline on this matter? --Otheus 10:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Strange Purpose

• Jhamez, I can't understand why you are so adamantly reverting any information I may give to the Wigan/Pemberton articles. I have displayed verifiable evidence to prove that Pemberton IS a separate place to Wigan. I have provided maps showing marked boundaries which have never changed. There has been NO evidence supplied to show that 'Pemberton is now part of Wigan'. That evidence does not exist, because it is not. I seem to think you are being rather spiteful in your actions, there can be no other reason as you know nothing about Wigan, Pemberton, or the area, whereas I have lived there all my life.

80.193.161.89 23:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

JemmyH

Hiya Jhamez, I would most certainly support your call for Mediation committee intervention. To be honest I'm rapidly starting to lose interest in the Wigan articles given that I seem to be answering the same question's and reiterating the same point's over and over again. In short, its boring. JemmyH seems to have an unfathomable disdain for all things Wigan, now whilst I have no objections or interest in his opinions of Wigan, I would like the articles to at least be factual. I think its now safe to say that he does not. Thanks Man2 00:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Man2

• Pathetic remark! Wigan has earned me a good lifestyle over the years. I live in the borough of the same name, own property in 'the town', have many friends and business acquaintances there. I actually LIKE Wigan! As for 'fact', yes, I would like the articles to be factual and not 'made up' of the personal opinions of Wigan residents who know no better, but think they do. I have shown Wigan's boundaries clearly marked. I have pointed out why the population figure is not for Wigan, but for a much larger area. I have tried to explain my feelings towards the article titled Wigan being about 'Wigan' and not an area several miles either side of it. 80.193.161.89 11:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

Emergency medical services in the UK

Hi there,

As you tagged it for clean up, I was wondering what specifically you would do in order to improve this article to meet the quality standards, just so i have pointers to work on?

Owain.davies 05:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, i'm going to clean it up as far as as possible. I've already converted the list of trusts to a table format (and i don't think it looks too bad...), but i'm not sure how to go about the infobox, and what should be in it.

References aren't that easy to come by, but i'm going to try and hunt some out

Thanks for your help - any direction on infoboxes would be appreciated Owain.davies 22:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Walkden

Hi, As you have tagged this for cleanup, and asked for citations, can you give myself some pointers as to what you would suggest needs to be worked on? Also, why were (most of) the links removed? Ok, there were one or two which were irrelevant an I admit to that (such as the ones under Misc), but links to local train times, the local bus operator and so on, should be exactly what is on there in my opinion. Afterall, it's a good way to find them out for people who don't know the area well or at all. Can you please explain to me the logic behind removing the ones you have? Thanks. 86.151.218.129 22:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Another about Walkden

6/4/07 Hello Jhamez You will have noticed that I recently edited the population of Walkden to 38,685. I added the relevant source, in this case the ONS, and provided a link to validate this statement. However, I have noticed that you have edited where I have altered the Greater Manchester Urban Area Page despite it stating on that page that you are using the ONS data. The data I have used and provided a link to is for 2001. Have you more recent data? What source are you using to give the population as 36 218? Regards GRB1972

7/04/07 Thanks for the response and the positive comments therein. Regards GRB1972

14/04/07

Hello Jhamez, I notice that you have stated that Walkden lay in the ancient parish of Deane. At university, I wrote a dissertation on the growth of Walkden in the 19th century and all the research I found stated that Walkden lay in the parish of Eccles. I do agree that some of Walkden, a minority area may have been in Deane but are you happy for me to edit the passage to read that the majority of Walkden lay in the parish of Eccles?I can send you a copy of the map of the parish of Eccles and Flixton that I have from www.british-history.ac.uk if you wish? Regards GRB1972

Derivative of SY map

I hope that you don't mind. I used your SY map as the basis for a map showing the extent of Hallamshire. The new map is at Image:Hallamshire maximum extent.png, if you disapprove I will delete it. Thanks, —Jeremy (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It was seeing your map of Salfordshire that made me decide to try Hallamshire. AFAIK Hallamshire was never a Wapentake/Hundred. I don't think that anyone really knows whether it has ever had any administrative significance, or quite why the name has persisted through history, but it is still quite widely used today. The Sheffield historian Joseph Hunter collected a few slightly different descriptions of the area that was included under the term Hallamshire. The one that I have used is the largest, but I may try and show some of the smaller areas on the same map. —Jeremy (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, you echo the sentiments of Hunter, who nearly 200 years ago wrote:

Sheffield is the little capital of a district familiarly known by the name of Hallamshire. Shire is share: a portion of territory shared or appropriated so some city, town, or castle. It does not always imply that there is any peculiar jurisdiction prevailing: for we find many instances in the northern parts of England in which the term is loosely applied to tracts of country merely, as it seems, because lying near some place of ancient note. This in the county of York we have North-Allertonshire, and Sowerbyshire; and the country about Massam, and old seat of the barons Scrope, is familiarly called Massamshire. But in the term Hallamshire we have this peculiarity, that for the last seven centuries at least there has been no considerable vill of the name of Hallam; nor indeed any distinct knot of houses to which that name belonged; the Hallum in the preceding list, like its neighbour Fullwode, describing probably (as at present) not a village but a wide-extended and thinly-peopled district. It is as if the name of Yorkshire existed, while there was no remain of the ancient and famous city of York.

Is the process for suggesting the merger of two wikiprojects the same as for articles? I think that this is the best option for the UK subdivisions project. I think that it might be good if the UK geography project can become a central place where the various smaller wikiprojects that have geographical elements in their scope (like WP:SHEFF) can co-ordinate their efforts. However, I think that it would be a good idea to consult all such wikiprojects (or at least invite them to join in the discussion) before doing anything big.

On a different note could you take a look at User:JeremyA/Sandbox/test—I am testing adding to the UK place infobox the option to include a scale parameter that would set the scale in the coord template. This would be useful when using the infobox on smaller places like Bakewell (see my test at User:JeremyA/Sandbox/Crookes).

Saddleworth - in Lancs or Yorks?

I have a copy of the book "The County Maps of Old England" (ISBN 1-85170-403-5). This 1990 edition has reproduced the original county maps from the 1830 edition. In it, long before the administrative counties were created, clearly shows that Saddleworth is in the Agbrigg wapentake. It also shows Morley as a separate wapentake. I can only assume that Agbrigg and Morley were merge later. So Saddleworth hasn't been part of the Salford hundred or Lancashire, it's just that at one time it came under the Parish of Rochdale, but still stayed part of the Agbrigg wapentake in the West Riding of Yorkshire. As you'll be aware Saddleworth became a separate parish in 1866, still before the administrative counties were created in 1889, and only in 1974 did Saddleworth become part of the then new created county of Greater Manchester.

There are a couple of webpages you might be interested in:

• The parish of Rochdale, A History of the County of Lancaster: Volume 5 (1911), pp. 187-201.
• Saddleworth cum Quick. From: Sabden - Saling, Little, A Topographical Dictionary of England (1848)', pp. 1-4.

At the moment the Saddleworth's Civic history section doesn't clearly show in which county it was at that the time. In the first paragraph gives the impression that it was in parish of Rochdale in Lancashire, then in the second paragraph seems to give the impression that it was moved to be part of the West Riding of Yorkshire. Perhaps it needs to be re-written. Anyway, I hope this information will be of use to you. Cwb61 (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I clearly see in your reply that the message above clearly annoyed you. I politely pointed out that the article needed a little work, specifically the civic history section. You being so touchy in that geographical area I didn’t edit the article but passed my thoughts on the matter, I even went to the trouble to find a couple of links for you. In future I’ll not bother if that is going to be the sarcastic tone of your replies in return. Cwb61 (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we've got our wires crossed. I read into your reply wrongly. It was that you used "clearer" at the end of your reply. I'd used "clearly" a few times in my message and felt you were throwing it back at me. You also used "As does..." a few times as though I wasn't aware about the intro and the links. It just gave the impression that you were annoyed. It's not easily to put words in a message and can be misread. You've not got anything to apologise for, it's me for having misread your reply. Cwb61 (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

UKCITIES Guide

Hello there. Thanks for the comments on the way in which the UK geography project might develop. I think if people work on it, it has the makings of something good. What I've started to do now, following our earlier discussions, is to read and assimilate the existing guidelines for writing about Cities with a view to getting a feel for how those could be adapted for the UK situation so as not to cause too great a possible disagreement. My first glance at WP:CITIES is an overwhelming sense of USA bias, so much so that I'm a bit surprised that there is mention of cities outsode the USA that have used the guidelines successfully. I think there is a clear-cut case to be made for bias there. Let's see if we can come up with something more suited to the UK case, but which has a clearly defined scope (like UKCITIES).  DDStretch  (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Happy Easter / Crommy' House tag

Hope you're well, having a pleasant Easter and making the most of the nice weather. Just making sure you're aware that the tag you added to the Crompton House article made it say something daft like - "This April 2007 does not adequately cite its references or sources". I've fixed it in the way that that Smackbot thing keeps doing, hope this is okay with you. ~~ Peteb16 21:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

West Yorkshire location map

I had a go at calibrating this. My first pass seems OK, but I am not as familiar with West Yorks as I am South Yorks, so it would be good to have someone else check it out before using it. —Jeremy (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

As a useful way of doing this can I suggest the following tactic? (I did it to some extent to try to help out with Cheshire) Find the points along the border where West Yorkshire has a triple boundary point with two other districts/counties. Find out the lat and long of those places, and include them in the map. If the map is calibrated correctly, and the points are districbuted entirely around the border, the points should all lie on the border line. It doesn't guarantee correct calibration, but if points are carefully selected to be present all around the border, it gets pretty close to guaranteeing it given that most district/county borders are not regular shapes (rectangles, squares, etc).  DDStretch  (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I have now made the map live, and added it to a number of articles. It seems to fit all motorway junctions OK (except for the one near Rochdale that is outside of Yorkshire anyway). I tried the larger towns first, and then tried a number of villages around the border of W.Yorks. The calibration may need some tweaking but doesn't appear to me to be wildly off anywhere.

With regards to South-South Yorkshire, maps of Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire will do fine. I think that trying to lump places like Dronfield, Eckington, or Killamarsh in with Sheffield would be regarded by the residents of these places as highly POV. I remember when Sheffield raised the idea of annexing these villages back in the late '80s; it did not go down well! —Jeremy (talk) 02:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

County outline maps

Hello there,

I've just seen these the other day and left a comment at Template talk:Infobox UK place. My concern was with the position of the motorway routes on the Greater Manchester map, and the same on the Cheshire map - as well as some of the coastlines. See User:Richard B/sandbox for some test edits showing these issues. I'd had a go at trying to line up this map with another to make a go at re-drawing them, but couldn't position them exactly - probably something to do with the projection method being different perhaps?

Anyway, what I was going to do is offer to help on making some of the other county maps, but I was wondering if you could point me in the direction of somewhere which we can copy to show things like the borough boundaries. I realise you aren't allowed to simply copy the boundaries from an OS map (unless published in or before 1956 - which probably will only show traditional county boundaries), or from multimap/streetmap or Google Earth etc. If you could point me in the direction of a decent source, I'd be grateful. I've got open-source motorway route and coastline waypoints, so don't need to worry about that. Thanks Richard B 12:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Derbyshire map

Hi, in response to your request for map making help I had a go at Derbyshire. Comments and criticism would be welcome. Also, if you let me know what the colours that you are using are, I can match yours better. I was aware when making this that you might already be making Derbyshire—if you are that's OK, we'll use yours, I just did this to see if I could do it (and how long it would take me). In future though, if I make any more I will let you know first to avoid duplication of effort. Thanks, —Jeremy (talk) 03:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I totally forgot about water—I realised after I went to bed last night (not thinking straight at the moment—I have a cold). I will add that. I also thought that landscape format would be best, which is why I made the UK map so huge. But then I realised this morning that most places are using the UK map which is portrait format, and it looks OK, so I might switch it to portrait and make the UK map smaller. —Jeremy (talk) 17:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Whadyathink? —Jeremy (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Greater Manchester Urban Area and Saddleworth

Glad to help! There's two PDFs held on the ONS website that I think you'd find useful. The first [3] is linked to at the bottom of the GMUA article. However, I think that the next sheet along [4] would be more useful for your Saddleworth query. By the looks of it, the settlements you mentioned are outside the 50m limit for continuous urban area. I've also looked through the ONS dataset, and they are not listed along with the GMUA, but separately (assuming I've got the right ones!)

Greenfield/Flitton is shown as having a population of 1,601 and Dobcross/Uppermill as having a population of 7,475. Fingerpuppet 18:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Article for you to look at

I tagged the article Mertanz pitch questioning its notability some time ago. Do you have any idea on its notability or should it be deleted? Pit-yacker 21:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

English County Maps - progress and "to do" table

Hello there,

I've created a table for these and placed at Template talk:Infobox UK place/maps#English County Maps. Please add any maps you're currently working on. Richard B 13:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thought I'd reply on your talk page. No problem - seemed like a sensible thing to do. There would have been a risk that two people would have done the same map and wasted effort. My 2nd attempt is with Cornwall. Feel free to check the pantones - looks ok on my monitor. I don't have Photoshop, but I've been using Corel photopaint with the eyedropper tool to match colours. I took my boundary data from NPE maps - it's surprising just how little some have changed since then - and other data from OpenStreetMap. If you want motorway or GB coastline position data as a list of lat & long waypoints (probably spaced every couple of hundred yards), then I'd recommend using OSM. I then used a graphics tool you probably hadn't thought of using - MS excel! I just plotted a graph of all my waypoints, screengrabbed and pasted into Photopaint for the colouring in. The advantage of that way is that excel plots it in the format required for the template. Makes it easy to calibrate as well! Anyway, nearly there with Devon now. Richard B 21:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Greater Sheffield map

Hey there Jhamez84, any luck creating this? I understand you're wokring on other couties, but just thought I'd ask. Incidentally, if you do creae it, can you add the High Peak/Hope Valley to the map? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 13:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Britannia Coconut Dancers

I disagree with you that the references to the BCD are un-notable, and hence that references to them within the Bacup entry should be removed. My perception is that the BCD are a key feature of Bacup identity and therefore relevant to any description and definition of the town, certainly more noteworthy than the references to 'The League of Gentleman' connection. I ask you to reconsider your edit. Anyone else have a view on this? Bob 07:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Au contraire

Nope. The flag is not part of the Infobox, it is part of the actual article. You will have to argue your case at the relevant article. --Mais oui! 11:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I bow to your procedural knowledge. Have taken your advice. Thank you. Bob 18:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Postal county for Saddleworth

The postal county always follows the post town, so it was officially Oldham and therefore Lancashire. But, Oldham was one of the 100 or so places where the postal county was not needed. The postal association with Lancashire is an old one, going back to at least 1870 where Uppermill is recored as the post office for Saddleworth and being 'under Manchester'. [5] MRSC • Talk 07:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Saddleworth - in Yorks or W.R.Yorks? - Hundred or hundred of Salford?

The ridings of Yorkshire originate from Viking/Dane times. These ridings had their own Quarter Sessions and from 1660-1974 each, for ceremonial purposes, had their own Lord Lieutenant - see the Lord Lieutenant of the North Riding of Yorkshire, Lord Lieutenant of the West Riding of Yorkshire and Lord Lieutenant of the East Riding of Yorkshire. These ridings were in many ways treated as separate counties.
So on the Salford (hundred) page I mentioned in the intro that Saddleworth was "in the West Riding of Yorkshire", which its boundaries existed before the creation of the administrative counties in 1888. I was trying be more precise with Saddleworth's association with the West Riding of Yorkshire. However, you've changed it to Yorkshire.
So although it's still correct to use Yorkshire on its own, I feel that your Edit summary comments "..... Saddleworth was from Yorks, not W Yorks Riding, as these were pre 1888 borders" is incorrect. I've shown that the West Riding of Yorkshire existed before 1888, as did the other ridings.
On the issue of about hundred or Hundred of Salford. If you look at the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham which has capital letters for its title, capital M for Metropolitan and B for Borough. So in that assumption I used a capital H for Hundred of Salford. You might be right that it’s just hundred of Salford. I'll have to look into that more. Cwb61 (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:South_Yorkshire_outline_map_with_UK.png

Any chance you could add these major tributaries of the River Don? (Converging under Holme Lane). The Rivlin and Loxley valleys mean a lot to the people of Sheffield, and are rich in industrial history, so I feel it is worth them being on the map. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did}

Poll options on Fred Dibnah's birthplace

I've started a poll on Talk:Fred_Dibnah with four options for his birthplace area. As you've left posts on that discussion page, I'm letting you know about this Poll and the chance to vote one of the options. Cwb61 (talk) 00:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC) (forgot to sign earlier).

Maps

Hey Jhamez84. would you mind working on a map for North Yorkshire and East Riding of Yorkshire? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 18:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Counties again

Hi, I've noticed that User:Alexander Howard appears to be adding spurious stuff about traditional counties. Just thought I'd let you know. You're more diplomatic then me. G-Man * 22:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Cotton Mill

I want to thank you for your persistence with the 1764 mill. I have today managed to see a copy of Butterworth, Oldham, which is the ultimate source for this. He refers to an ancient inhabitant telling him, but was himslef sceptical about it (as I have been). However, your making me trace this has enabled me also to resolve another issue that had troubled me about the adoption of carding technology. I hope to amend the cotton mill article tonight, and will ensure that the 1764 mill has an appropriate prominence and context (which it does not have at present. The tertiary (or worse) Internet authorities that you have cited seem to have made more of the reference than Butterworth did, but that often happens with such works - the 'Chinese whispers' problem. Thank you nevertheless. Peterkingiron 15:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have 'lumped together' all the references for the Royton Mill, because they are NOT multiple authorities. Everything goes back to the statement by Butterworth. Multiple repetitions of the same statement add nothing to authority of a fact. I have removed the modern newspaper references because they carry little authority. Having identifed where the ultimately statement came (i.e. the ultimate secondary source). ALL the others are strictly redundant, and could be deleted, but it is useful to leave some Internet resources, which are more available than a scarce 19th century book. I hope this can mark the end of the controversy between us. The matter can only be taken further by original research in archival sources (whose direct citation on WP is considered unacceptable). Peterkingiron 19:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Mendip Hills (again)

As you have previously commented on this article could I ask a favour if you have time. Mendip Hills is up as a FA candidate (again) at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mendip Hills & hasn't got enough support yet & is likely to run out of time soon. Could you take a look & add any comments. Thanks — Rod ^talk 08:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Greater Manchester project

Is there a standard template for articles in this project? Based on my experiences with the Sale article there does seem to be quite a gap between what's generally expected and what's reasonable for a good article on what are after all rather small geographical areas. I'm thinking about climate data for instance. ---- Eric 00:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

John Anthony Lees

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article John Anthony Lees, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. — iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)