User talk:Jza84/archive12

WikiProject Greater Manchester February Newsletter, Issue XIV

Delivered on 1 February 2009 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

Intermarriage between British peoples deletion

Hi, I created the article 'Intermarriage between British peoples' thinking that it touched on a relevant subject, but I find its now deleted. Could I ask why? Is it something to do with the quality of the article, or does a similar article already exist? Could you please respond. Thanks Kentynet (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It is because this "article" failed several key thresholds for inclusion on Wikipedia, namely: WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NOT, WP:A, WP:CITE and WP:NOTABILITY. Wikipedia is not a place to publish original ideas and unsourced opinions. If you want to propose a new page, you must provide references - Wikipedia is here to report on scholarly, pre-published facts, not speculation and synthesis of ideas. The title is also highly contentious but until some evidence of meeting the aforesaid guidelines is provided there is little to be gained debating that. And to combat any notions of bias, I am myself the product of intermarriage between British people (singular) - English and Scottish, and further up my tree, British Canadian and Ulster Scottish. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I guess the article did fall short a bit and maybe a better title would have been better, but couldn't it have merely been flagged for improvement, I mean there are much worse articles on wikipedia. I'll re-write it sometime and try and meet the requirements and I might run it past you first next time. Thanks anyway Kentynet (talk) 13:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps try writing your article in User:Kentynet/Sandbox? --Jza84 |  Talk  13:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

British people (cough...)

Um.. perhaps not the best turn of phrase to use in that context? Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops! Now I know how politicians get in trouble by mixing up their words! I meant it innocently! --Jza84 |  Talk  00:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Dawn Mill, Shaw 0012.png

Can you give a bit of assistance with User:Rettetast. I know he is well intentioned but the the amount of time he is causing me to waste is preventing the article developing. Thanks for Regent mill references. --ClemRutter (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

And here we go again. Wikipedia talk:Non-free content- I found this page by chance. --ClemRutter (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have spent the morning penning a reply- assistance appreciated. Wikipedia talk:Non-free content.--ClemRutter (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Your offer

I have reconsidered your offer :) Best wishes, Majorly talk 02:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Great stuff! Hope you enjoy being a part of the project! Cheadle Hulme looks like it's going to be an interesting article too. Welcome aboard! :) --Jza84 |  Talk  12:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the welcome. It looks like I've jumped feet first into the Scotland article. I do think the opening paragraph is lacking due mainly to the opening sentence. I'm also not quite sure what the editor I am having a conversation with means by confusing, even though he has tried to explain it to me. Tumblin Tom (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

White British

Alun and I have been removing the attempt of an anon/John Rushton83 to put an infobox in this article, complete with pictures. My problem with this is that White British doesn't seem verifiable as anything but a census classification (i.e. not an ethnic group), in contrast however "unfair" that may be to "Black British" (etc). Can you review this at your leisure. Other opinions are needed. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I've passed comment. I've no issue with an infobox, or even pictures (if theres consensus - I've no strong opinion), but those pictures were terrible for us all! Robert the Bruce being White British? People really need to brush up on what constitutes an ethnic group and I've cited a source to that effect. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you keep an eye on this? - I'll be offline for a while. User:John Rushton83 is continuing to make unverified assertions which in my view go outside the scope of the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I've left a warning here. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Good move - thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi.

Can i ask you to archive the Talk: England page? It’s due a good old archive and i have asked on the talk page if anyone would object and i didn't get a response. Misortie (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Brit Day

I'd rather not get into an edit war with someone I have always regarded as a fair and diligent fellow-editor, but I really must question your recent edits to "British Day". I reinstated most of the section removed by Bread and Cheese, which you had left in place in your previous edits, and you decided to prune it to the bone and derive it of the following context:

"In recent years, surveys have demonstrated a significant increase in the number of people choosing to solely or primarily identify with their own national identities instead of a British identity. This is particularly true in Wales and Scotland since the introduction of devolution. In those two countries, and in the Republican community in Northern Ireland, the potential opposition to a British Day is considerable."

Are you seriously suggesting that is not the case? Why not just ask for a reference? I've been trying to bring some balance into what could be regarded as an extremely biased account. It could be better worded, perhaps, but my point is that this flag-waving exercise by Gordon Brown is about as welcome in Wales (and Scotland) as the Israeli cabinet would be in Gaza. It is a political issue which some people feel very strongly about. I object to it being airbrushed out in this way in an article that originally read like an advertisement for the Monday Club. There are many republicans in England who have seen through the charade as well and it would be good to have that point of view included as well, eventually. I note you have left a number of pro-Brit Day generalisations without demanding a citation and not done anything to change the rather partial tone of the article in general: not all of us go about waving the Union Jack and worshiping Elizabeth Mountbatten-Windsor. Please be a bit more reasonable. Enaidmawr (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It's an unsourced opinion as far as I can tell. Of course, the threshold for inclusion is and always has been verifiability, not truth. Citing sources would actually strenthen the credibility of this position, otherwise it looks like original research. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This works for me. A lesson would be it took all of five minutes to strengthen the article up with a few references. Things like WP:V and WP:OR are effective editorial tools used for bettering the credibility of Wikipedia. Major criticisms of Wikipedia in the press usually revolve around its lack of sources and reliability. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, of course. I've been here long enough to know about wikipedia policies and try to adhere by them. The source I found was not on-line when I first stumbled upon this article and became embroiled in it (much against my better judgement, but somebody had to step in). The list of "potential candidates" of significant dates to be used for the event have been tagged as lacking citations for a long time now. Actually I think they are quite valid as far as they go, i.e. what common sense would suggest... (like the reaction in certain parts of northern Ireland!?), but they could also be classed as OR, completely unsourced as they are. Who exactly says they are potential candidates? Do they go, therefore? Regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Possibly the candidates do need to go yes, under the same terms. If you felt the need to remove them then you're permitted under WP:V (the WP:BURDEN of proof is on those who add(ed) them). The article isn't really my baby so perhaps raising this on its talk page would prompt its regulars to provide references? --Jza84 |  Talk  11:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Stevvvv4444

Hi. I noticed that you've expressed concerns in the past about User:Stevvvv4444 categorising people according to ethnicity without providing sources to back up this categorisation. A look at their edit history reveals that this is continuing. Do you have any suggestions for how we can stop them? In many cases, the categorisation is a violation of WP:OC#CATGRS, which states "people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career". Cordless Larry (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I personally believe this user needs taking down a WP:RFC or formal mediation now. Their continual lack of edit summaries and breaches of WP:BLP and not respecting basic editorial principles like WP:V and WP:OR means they are making a mockery of consensus based decision making and downgrading the reliability and credibility of Wikipedia. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Also, just to let you know, they commonly edit using IP addresses rather than logging in. I've started a list at User:Cordless Larry/Desk to keep track. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I've noticed that when this has been challenged in the past, the ips seem to gain activity over the registered ID. I've challenged Stevvvv4444 on his/her talk page highlighting why I think his categorisation is so alarming from an ethical and verification standpoint. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The categorisation seems to have stopped for now. He/she has instead been editing Colombians in the United Kingdom using his/her account and an IP. I'm still concerned that categorisation might still be going on using another IP that we don't know about though. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

A benefit of using an ip means at least they cannot create new categories. But yes, this will still need monitoring, I sense that this is by no means the end of POV ethnic groupings being added to the project. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm also wondering about several user accounts with similar edit histories, such as Unknown789 and Troy86. Do you think these could be sockpuppets? I'm pretty sure that they are of each other (compare this and this) but I also wonder if they may be sockpuppets of Stevvvv4444. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Stevvvv4444 has started to categorise without references and in cases where the person's ethnicity is of no obvious relevance again. Shall we take this somewhere now? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Otterathome

Hi this user is trolling on WP:ANI and is making, what I feel, racist remarks about me. He accusses me of being an anti-semite, a religious fanatic and quite frankly I have lost patience with this user a few times becuase of this and have ended up swearing at him. Can you please block this user for a set period of time. He manipulates arguments, and keeps being uncivil. He uses the "Muslim excuse" to overshadow my edits, and calls them vandalism. I have had it up to here with him. He is causing me distress. I have warned him previously about having a religious agenda against me but he has continued to propell his argument that I am a no good vandal. After announcing and calling me an anti-semite and stalking my edits I have had the last straw, please block this user. Please see the following discussion for what I mean. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 17:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This looks really serious. Serious enough that I think this may be out of the realms of one lone admin and instead having a formal sanction being agreed upon by several admins, and perhaps so to both parties. I'll have to have a read of the debate.

I appreciate this is causing some distress, and I am not condoning his/her actions. I would urge you to present your findings and concerns and then disengage. Any actions of Otterathome will then speak for themselves. Using obscene language may impact upon your own reputation.

Please give me some time to review the incident, but I cannot promise any kind of block until I see the facts for myself, as I'm sure you can appreciate. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Interest

Hi! Just a heads up for a small 'TG' issue on Commons Admin board. 82.30.77.192 (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This is outside of my normal area of operation. Although I thank you for letting me know about this (it may be appropriate to provide a link to this should Yorkshirian want to present his case for returning here), I'd rather not get into the knitty gritty of the actual debate - Yorkshirian already thinks my only purpose for being here to to give him greif, which it isn't! --Jza84 |  Talk  19:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Award!

Many thanks, much appreciated! I didn't realise what I'd started in attempting to get Merseyside & Cheshire placename articles to conform to WP:UKTOWNS. Best wishes. ;-) Snowy 1973 (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

British people

Thanks for the message and link, ill take awhile to look at it and get back to you as its going to take some time to come up with ideas. One thing i do think is the current first paragraph should remain intact except for the bit about modern migration. Deal with all the pre British history first rather than allowing that to take up two pararaphs. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Also i dont think we should mention the stuff in the 4th paragraph in the introduction, there does need to be a section dealing with such things in the article but theres plenty to fit into the intro whilst leaving that out. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

What concerns me is that Wikipedia should be the sum of all knowledge - if one looks at sources about British people they all refer to certain national characteristics, really. Although it might make for uncomfortable reading, I believe our readers will be looking for something along those lines. Certainly internationlly, that is what British people are. I want to make the page about British people, rather than how "some see them as a nation, others do not", "to some they are ethnically this, others ethnically that" kind of vibe and tagline - we need a whole package. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree there needs to be a section dealing with national characteristics but i dont think it needs to be in the introduction as theres more important things. Im not very good at putting things into sentences that would be acceptable for an article, i think we need to get agreement from all about all the basic bits of information needed in the intro then put them into sentences and paragraphs.

First Paragraph - *Basic history before the "British" identity was established (which is currently all covered in the opening paragraph, removing the bit about 20th century migration).

Second paragraph- This is the difficult one i think which should contain how British identity came about including first a mention of the Scottish King becoming King of England, trying to create symbols of unity like the union flag, which was the early attempt to create shared identity. We shouldnt just say it began after 1707 because thats nonsense, for 100 years a step by step approach was taken to try to bring people together otherwise nobody would of accepted the act of union. We also need a mention of what was happening in Wales whilst the bonding was starting between the English and Scottish. Then a mention of war or how British identity was strenghtened after time including by mass migration between England, Wales and Scotland and mixed relationships.

Third paragraph - Ireland, starting with migration to ireland, then mention act of union with Ireland, then mention strong sense of British identity with some whilst others strongly rejected it and a mention of the partition. nationality law developing, about how people were considered British subjects all over the world, and now millions have ancestory with some examples such as australia.

Fourth - Mention of some only feeeling welsh, English or Scottish, and say this has risen in recent years after the decline of Empire and the introduction of devolution. Then the bit about migration from Europe and the commonwealth.

These are the points i think need covering in the introduction, sterotypes are a distraction to the bigger issues. Its not all in order and some could be in different paragraphs but i think we need agreement on the content before getting too involved in the wording which will take a long time. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Alot of this to me this sounds like a repetition of history of the formation of the United Kingdom - something I hope we can try to avoid, or at least put into perspective. The whole issue of unification dominates so many articles that I think it hinders the substance of a great many topics (just see any "X in the UK" page and it usually tells the story of unification). Also there is the issue that this kind of material isn't mentioned in the published domain; I suppose one only needs to google "British people" to get a sense of how the rest of the world goes about tackling the subject, and in turn see the angle I'm trying to come from. For me, this article (and thus the lead) should be, and should always have been about the "who, what, where, why, how, when" of British people; a bit about ancestry, nationality law, location, controversies, and importantly, international standing.

That said, I don't think I've done the British diaspora any justice, and will try to find something with regards to America, Canada, Australia etc. Everything in the lead is pretty much sourced, quoted even, to try and solify the lead. I don't want the cliches of Royal families, tea drinking and bad teeth in the lead, I think they're non-starters, but the aspects I've alluded to are repeated throughout reference material. I'll keep working on this. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it ok if we transfer (copy) this conversation to the discussion page on sandbox, so debate is all in the same place on it? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The Sandman

I've left comments on your sandbox. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion request

Came across these after checking the contributions of a certain editor whose edits you reverted, quite rightly: English Day, Scottish Day, Welsh Day, United Kingdom Day. All misleading and pointless redirects, presumably by the same editor, which should be deleted IMHO. Hope you agree. By the way, your edit was reverted but I've now restored it. Regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with the above. I'm not an administrator here on the English wikipedia, but if I were I'd certainly be keeping a close eye on the numerous redirects made by this editor. Some of them may be valid but others are at best misleading and at worst quite ludicrous: just scroll down the list! Some relate to Wales and Britain/UK and as it's obvious that our POVs are poles apart I'm not about to get embroiled in an argument by drawing attention to this on the contributor's talk page. Perhaps you or a colleague could have a quiet word? Enaidmawr (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Adopt a User Program

Hi- I am new to Wikipedia. I have articles on Barnham, sufflok that was researched about 30 years ago I would like to put into Wikipedia. Once that is done, I would like to learn more about using and editing. Are you interested in helping? Flyfishing Ray (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)FlyfishingRay

Edward Potts

I've sent you an email you may find of interest. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Okie dokie! I'll take a look! Thanks for the contact! --Jza84 |  Talk  01:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much so responding to my request. I looked at the reference you mentioned. I am somewhat embarrassed to say that I felt overwhelmed as to how to get started. My basic goal is to enter some articles that my wife wrote for a local quarterly magazine "Around Barnham" some 30 yers ago. There was some significant research she did, and I would hate to see the information lost. The publicatio was just a local one. How can I best get this done? I am so new to Wikipedia that I spent several hours yesterday just figuring out how to contact you. I would be most appreciative of any help I can get. I am also not in a big hurry to get my goal accomplished. Thanks again for your response.Ray —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ray Kendall (talk • contribs) 17:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

City status of Durham

Hi, I am a little perplexed by this edit you made just before Christmas. Durham has held city status since time immemorial; the fact that the current holder of the status is the local government district does not result in the loss of status by the city itself. Indeed, using your definition, I think the only cities in the entire country are Brighton and Hove, Preston, Wolverhampton, Inverness, Stirling, Newport, and Newry if we exclude charters not conferred directly on the town and which are instead held by a body corporate (London borough, metropolitan or non-metropolitan district, civil parish, or charter trustees). This seems an absurd definition for Wikipedia to adopt. DWaterson (talk) 23:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

A city can be called a city without reference to its local government status. In the Durham article the "place" is constantly referred to as "a city". While there may be some obscure technicality that denies Durham the status of a city purely in administrative terms, the reality is that Durham is definitely a city and this should be reflected in Wikipedia. To open the article with something like "Durham is at the heart of the City of Durham" is just daft, and bad writing. Blacklans (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it is verifiable. You're here to write an encyclopedia and serious educational tool, not rewrite history because it is inconvienient. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I haven't got the large number of edits to my name that you have, but please don't try and lecture me. Furthermore, it would be helpful if you didn't engage in implicit canvassing, as you appear to have done in contacting User:Lozleader. I believe I've read some policy or other which discourages it. My further remarks on the Durham issue are at Talk:Durham. Blacklans (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your reply (on my talk), but I think you've missed my point. In your edit to Durham, you argued that the settlement known as Durham is not a city, because city status is currently conferred on the City of Durham local government district. But my point is that the distinction you are drawing between the status-holder and the settlement is false, because it is still proper that the settlement has the benefit of the status held by the district within which it stands. DWaterson (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Update: I notice that you've also made a number of similar edits to other articles where (using Talk:List of cities in the United Kingdom#Corporate Bodies as a guide) we have separate articles for "City of Placename" district and the settlement itself (eg. Canterbury; Wakefield). I have to say that these changes appear to be against the very long-standing consensus used on the City status in the United Kingdom article. Will you be changing Birmingham to "Birmingham is a place within the City of Birmingham local government district"? (After all, Birmingham includes Sutton Coldfield, but I don't think many Suttonians would claim to live in a city given that place's own civic history as a Royal Town!) DWaterson (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I would be interested in exploring the very long-standing consensus used on the City status in the United Kingdom article. I'm very familiar with the article and the sources that inform it, and as far as I understand it, and as stated in the article, city status in many cases extends to the entire district, for instance in Canterbury, Durham, Lancaster and so on. As I have stated further down this page I believe this to have been a fudge in the 1972 legislation, but it is verifiable that Carnforth is part of City of Lancaster and (yes) Sutton Coldfield is part of the City of Birmingham[1]. That is the law and that is the intent of the letters patent. Absurd it may or may not be, but there it is.

User:Blacklans and User:DWaterson are making good faith edits that are, however, adding inaccuracies and unverifiable material to Wikipedia. Like these two editors I am not happy with articles that start with "X is the urban core of the City of X" or "Y is the largest settlement and administrative centre of the City of Y". They are ugly and confusing. I would also not want to put a lot of obscure stuff about charters and local government into the lead, it belongs in governance. We need to find a form of words that is both clearly understood to the general reader and factually correct. I wonder about the use of "city" with a small "c", but this would probably be original research or something.

However and all, we need to guard against the inaccuracies that are creeping, such as:

• Descriptions such as "City of Lancaster District". Incorrect per the legislation. Its the "City of Lancaster" as here [2]. That or District of Lancaster. City of X District is also tautological. City and district are two names for the same thing.
• None of the districts or parishes "inherited" their city status. The municipal boroughs that held city status ceased to exist on 31 March 1974. The new districts or parishes were granted city status de novo: although actually in order to continue the dignity unbroken. The districts were given their names by statutory instrument in 1973, the shadow councils were elected in the same year and they applied for charters for borough status and then lettters patent conferring city status. The 1972 Act provided that the new charters/patents would not come into force prior to 1 April 1974. So it was a seamless changeover, but none of it came automatically. As was made clear at the time, the status would be lost if these actions were not taken. This was reinforced at the next round of reorganisations, when Rochester ceased to be a city, and both Herford and Lichfield temporarily lost ther status and had it have it regranted.[3] [4]

It would be just great if a consensus called be reached, that makes for both a readable article that reflects the actual situation based on reliable sources, and gives us all time to do lots of constructive editting.Lozleader (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Commentary removed from talk:Durham

Just noticed the allegation of canvassing above, so I have removed my contributions from the Durham talk page. I had in fact been keeping an eye on the conversation going on here in any case, but yes the message gave me the push to contribute. This was my addition:

Er, I think there is perhaps some confusion between the City of Durham, as in what officially enjoys city status, and the urban area or city of Durham, as used in normal discourse.

1.) The City of Durham

The entity that enjoyed official city status pre 1974 was the municipal borough. It was recognised as a city by ancient prescriptive usage, which means (I think) the title had been used since time immemorial. I can give refs for this if needed if this is in dispute.

This municipal borough was abolished at midnight on 1 April 1974, and the (official) city status would have been lost without the grant of new letters patent. City status has been lost in the past (St Davids in 1886 when the old city corporation was abolished for example).

New letters patent were issued on 1 April 1974 to the non-metropolitan district and borough created under the Local Government Act 1972 (which combined the municipal borough with Brandon & Byshottles Urban District and Durham Rural District):"No. 46255". The London Gazette. 4 April 1974.

THE QUEEN has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm, bearing date the 1st day of April 1974 to ordain that the Borough of Durham shall

have the status of a City.

Which makes it clear that officially city status extends to the entire district. The mayor of the City of Durham could be elected for any ward in the district, whether in the pre-1974 city or not. These facts can be backed up with reliable sources.

2.)The city of Durham

In informal use, the built-up area of Durham continues to be described as the "city", legislation notwithstanding. The presence or not of an Anglican cathedral does not bestow any rank or status on a community, and has not since the 1880s. Refs for this fact also can be given.

There have been intermniable debates at Leeds/City of Leeds which are somewhat related, including the allegation that Leeds as most understand it, does not exist, and to assert otherwise is to be guilty of original research! I would hate to see the Durham article go down the same route....

1 April 2009

Fortunately, perhaps, the whole situation will change on 1 April 2009. My understanding is that the Charter Trustees Regulations 2009 (apparently in draft form but not yet online) will create charter trustees for the City of Durham, whose jurisdiction will extend to the unparished area that is coterminate with the pre-1974 municipal borough. Which means the problem will go away!

Postscript to the above....

I think what we have is the unravelling of a compromise made in the 1972 legislation. In some cases the only way to preserve the city status was to confer it on the whole district. This was the case in Durham. It also happened in St Albans, which the council call the "City and District of St Albans", although the government use "City of St Albans".

I was looking at the parliamentary debates here [5] Lord Nugent of Guildford introduced, and then withdrew, an amendment promoted by the Association of Municipal Corporations that would have preserved city and or borough status independent of local government:

The A.M.C. take the view that more important than the question of powers, however, has been the recognition by the granting of a charter of the existence of a recognisable local community with the lord mayor, or mayor, at its head. The incorporation of the city, or borough, in the form of a lord mayor or mayor, aldermen, citizens, or burgesses, as the case may be, clearly recognises the existence of the local community as an entity served by the council but including the whole membership of the local community.

And Lord Leatherland referred to the issue thus:

"If we have an ancient borough the size of a tennis ball and it is incorporated into a new district the size of a football, what will the mayor be the mayor of? Will he be the mayor of the tennis ball or the mayor of the football? If the answer is that he will merely be the mayor of the tennis ball, will it be open to the other councils in the football circumference to say, "We want to be included in that mayoralty as well"?

So, to paraphrase Lord Leatherland, is the city of Durham the tennis ball (as used in day to day discourse) or the football (the local government district)? It would have been so much simpler if they had either a.) completely disconnected the notion of city status from a unit of administration or b.) abolished city status altogether. I'm not sure that parliament can (so openly) impose restrictions on the royal prerogative anyway... Lozleader (talk) 13:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Lozleader, and I agree very much with you. I am pleased to see that you also agree the "Placename is a settlement within the City of Placename" construction is unsatisfactory. I wonder if City of Wakefield is a particularly instructive example, as that authority has chosen to use the extraordinary construction of "Wakefield Metropolitan District" (presumably for political reasons in recognition of the fact that although that authority is the city status-holder for Wakefield, there are a considerable number of reasonably large towns and other rural areas within the district that would not identify with the concept of being a "City"). Having said that, of course, in truth the situation is exactly as anywhere else - I wonder if Sutton Coldfield should start laying claim to the dignity held by its adminstrative authority! I think the only issue I am still disputing (with Jza84) is the question of settlement vs authority. In the case of Durham (as elsewhere), it is almost the inverse of Lord Leatherland's comment - it is not the other settlements in the wider "football", claiming a status they were not previously entitled to, that is the issue, but simply whether the "tennis ball" settlement is entitled to call itself by the City name which is currently bestowed on the local authority? I would argue very much yes. DWaterson (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Lozleader, thank-you also. I'm sure everything you say is correct. However, because a place is not a city in local gevernment terms does mean we can't refer to it as a city, even in Wikipedia. I think the current arrangement at Durham is fine. The place is referred to as a city, small c, in the lead sentence. We can differentiate between the "city of Durham", the actual city, and "City of Durham", the local government area. Note the absence of the definite article in the latter. I think we should extend this convention to all settlements where there is ambiguity. Blacklans (talk) 12:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

"city" of Durham is WP:OR and a breach of WP:V and WP:SYNTH. --Jza84 |  Talk  05:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Littlewoods

Hi Jza84, I saw that you recently undid some edits I made to the Littlewoods and Shop Direct entries. I added external links to the Littlewoods.com site, intending to indicate that this was the current incarnation of the brand having closed its high street stores. Having now read the full Wikipedia guidelines, I can see how this addition could have been perceived as spam.

I think the entry is still valid but would be better suited to just the Littlewoods page with a clearer description, e.g. Official Littlewoods Online Presence. Would something like this be acceptable?

Thanks. Btullett (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Lusophobia

Is it just me, Jza, or is the content of Lusophobia (esp. UK section) a wee bittie perturbing? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester March Newsletter, Issue XV

Delivered on 1 March 2009 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

Ireland naming question

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to let you know I shamelessly stole your newsletter layout for a little project I'm running, see here. It's such a great layout I just wanted to have a go at using it, so thanks. Apterygial 02:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Chesterfield Borough Council coat of arms.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Chesterfield Borough Council coat of arms.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

invitation

You're invited to sign up as a founding member, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#WikiProject Historic Sites ! :) doncram (talk) 08:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

A bit of a kerfuffle

I wonder if you'd have a look at this discussion and the one below it and tell me if I'm being unreasonable? The article concerned is in a right state and I've determined that I'm going to see it up to at least GAC. I am however experiencing resistance to my changes and my view that everything in the article must be referenced from reliable sources. I don't think I've done anything wrong, I could probably bit a bit friendlier but since the article has been languishing at C-class for ages, with few changes, I don't really feel the need to ask anyone's permission before making changes - and Wikiproject Pink Floyd is very quiet. It also might not help that I've just nominated Pink Floyd for WP:FAR. What do you think? Probably best to reply here, to avoid inflaming the situation with Hexachord viewing my talk page. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)