User talk:Skinsmoke/Archive 2009

Civil parish

Hi, I see you've added mention of civil parish status to a few local pages such as Otley - could I suggest it would be useful to link to civil parish, to help people who don't know the technical term? PamD (talk) 13:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I must admit I was in two minds whether to link to civil parish or not. In the end I decided the term was fairly well understood, and that it would be creating unnecessary links, but I really don't have a strong feeling either way. There seems to be no clear pattern on English sites - some are linked, some aren't (consistency never being Wikipedia's strong point!). I actually came to the Otley site whilst updating the List of civil parishes in West Yorkshire page, so that may well have influenced my opinion. If you think it would be better linked, feel free to do so.Skinsmoke (talk) 13:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of List of civil parishes in Greater London

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Sallicio^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 23:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Please re-create this article with good content: as soon as I saw it, I knew that we needed to have an article on the topic. The reason that it was deleted was not that it was a problem topic but that the article was tiny and gave no context. Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The page had been sitting there for a while? A couple of hours at most. I had actually gone to eat having, I thought, put enough on to justify the page remaining until I got back! The page was intended to form part of the subpages to List of civil parishes in England following a change in legislation allowing civil parishes to be formed in Greater London. There are none yet, as would be made clear once the page was completed, but they can be added as the situation changes over the ensuing months and years. It could be argued that the page should be left until a civil parish has been established. However, that leaves the list of counties in England incomplete (each other county has a page). Skinsmoke (talk) 01:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you just write a few sentences with a reference or two, talking about how there were long no civil parishes there but there will now be some? Assuming that you have the source in front of you, it surely won't take more than a few minutes. Do you want the text that I deleted? If so, I'll give it to you by creating a user subpage for you. Nyttend (talk) 02:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Please - won't get round to it tonight, and there wasn't very much of it, but it saves me having to think too much! Skinsmoke (talk) 02:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Page moves

Hi. I notice you have been moving a bunch of pages such as Metropolitan Borough of Lewisham to Lewisham metropolitan borough or Crayford Urban District to Crayford urban district. I assume this part of Wikipedia's naming policy, but it sure is ugly/inaccurate. There was once a local government entity known as the Metropolitan Borough of Lewisham (with the capitals) but never anything called Lewisham metropolitan borough. This would also necessitate renaming London Borough of Barking and Dagenham to Barking and Dagenham London borough which looks very odd. Looking at contemporary local government articles the format Chester-le-Street (district) or Boston (borough) with brackets are used. I would therefore suggest that if, say County Borough of Stockport, for example, needs to be changed it should be to Stockport (county borough), not Stockport county borough. What do you think or could you point me at the relevant policy? Cheers. Lozleader (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. The general principle is set out in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places), and I agree, it's ugly and alien to English eyes. However, on re-reading the policy I actually think you're right. There IS provision for Metropolitan Borough of Lewisham, London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and County Borough of Stockport, and on reflection, I think they should be changed back. I haven't actually changed that many, because I was finding it pretty tedious, but if you want to help by removing the Move on any you've noticed I'd be more than happy. Incidentally, Crayford Urban District is still wrong (it should be Urban District of Crayford), as are Chester-le-Street (district) and Boston (borough), which should be District of Chester-le-Street and Borough of Boston respectively. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem, it's an easy mistake to have made (I think I did it once a while back and got a slap on the wrist for it!). I'll probably pick this up tomorrow. Thanks for compiling the list for me, --Jza84 |  Talk  02:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Monifieth Landward district

Hi. Seem to be crossing mice with you again. I wonder are you getting confused? As far as I can see from the following, most of the Monifieth District was in Dundee district in 1975, but a lot was "returned" to angus in 1996....

The definition of the district under the scheme:

Scheme for the division of the Landward Area of the County into Districts and for the establishment of District Councils, made by the County Council of the County of Angus in terms of Section 25 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, dated 7 March 1930

Monifieth District.

• Monifieth and Dundee electoral division: (Parish of Monifieth, Parish of Dundee)
• Liff and Banvie electoral division
• Mains and Strathmartine electoral division
• Auchterhouse, Lundie, and Fowlis Easter electoral division (Parish of Auchterhouse, Parish of Lundie, Parish of Fowlis Easter)
• Newtyle and Kettins electoral division (Parish of Newtyle, Parish of Kettins)
• Murroes and Tealing electoral division (Parish of Murroes, Parish of Tealing)

Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 definitions:

The City of Dundee district:

• The county of the city of Dundee.
• In the county of Angus — the burgh of Monifieth; the district of Monifieth (except the electoral division of Newtyle and Kettins).
• In the county of Perth — the electoral division of Longforgan.

Perth and Kinross District:

• The county of Kinross.
• In the county of Angus — the parish of Kettins.
• In the county of Perth — the burghs of Aberfeldy, Abernethy, Alyth, Auchterarder, Blairgowrie and Rattray, Coupar Angus, Crieff, Perth, Pitlochry; the districts Central (except the parish of Muckhart), Eastern Highland, Perth (except the electoral division of Longforgan); the electoral division of Ardoch.

Angus District:

In the county of Angus — the burghs of Arbroath, Brechin, Carnoustie, Forfar, Kirriemuir, Montrose; the districts of Brechin, Carnoustie, Forfar, Kirriemuir, Montrose; the parish of Newtyle.

Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 defintions:

Angus Area:

• Angus District
• From City of Dundee District - Tayside electoral 30 (Monifieth) and that part of 31 (Sidlaw) which, until 16 May 1975, had been in the county of Angus.

Dundee City Area:

• City of Dundee District except Tayside electoral 30 (Monifieth) and 31 (Sidlaw)

Perth & Kinross Area:

• Perth & Kinross District
• From City of Dundee District - that part of 31 (Sidlaw) which, until 16 May 1975, had been in the county of Perth.

As far as I can see, the information was correct, and referenced. Do you have another source that says different? Lozleader (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right! I had overlooked the rural area being transferred to the City of Dundee, having assumed it was only the Burgh of Monifieth. Sorry! Incidentally, do you have a copy of the "Local Government (District Council Electors) Order (Scotland), 1930", which I presume is where the schedule of Districts are listed? Skinsmoke (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

No, but most of them were listed in the Edinburgh Gazette. I should have posted the link, I believe thay have added an Edinburgh option to the London Gazette citation template.... One moment while I try and figure it out.... Lozleader (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Think this is the right link for the Angus one. There are quite a few other counties in that issue. If you use the advanced search option all sorts of wonderful things can be unearthed! "No. 14633". The Edinburgh Gazette. 11 March 1930.

By the way you seem to be doing some sterling work on civil parishes. Good job. Lozleader (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, though I sometimes wonder if I'm doing more harm than good! I've left List of civil parishes in Greater Manchester alone, as someone's obviously spent a fair bit of time and effort on it. I'd like to get it in the same format as the other counties, perhaps copying a bit of the introduction over to the other counties, but also retaining the table but perhaps moving it under the map, but am reluctant to do so without discussion. Any suggestions? Skinsmoke (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I've just looked at the Edinburgh Gazette link. I'm in heaven| (Sad git, huh?) Skinsmoke (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Brereton

I don't think moving this from Brereton, Staffordshire to Brereton and Ravenhill is a good idea - the "Ravenhill" part is fairly obscure, even locally. It doesn't appear on any maps (although there is a Ravenhill Park). Most people would expect to find the page under simply "Brereton". Is there a standard somewhere that says the page must be at the official civil parish name? If not, I think it ought to be under the common name of the village. — sjorford++ 09:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, the parish name seems more appropriate to the article which applies to the whole parish rather than just the Brereton part. There is very little specifically about the village rather than the parish as a whole. The neighbouring parish of Armitage with Handsacre is dealt with in the same way, though in that case the two villages also have individual entries (there is a little more information on the individual villages which justifies separate entries). In the case of Brereton I just didn't think there was enough there to justify separate pages. Skinsmoke (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I agree there should only be one page. But there is not a "Brereton part" - Brereton is the whole parish. Ravenhill Park is smack bang in the middle of the village. The parish name is just an archaic name for the same place. — sjorford++ 00:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Clearly it isn't just an "archaic name". There was previously a parish of Brereton (which covered a much larger area, including Brindley Heath and a large part of what is now Rugeley). That was abolished in 1934 when Rugeley took over its suburbs. When, in the last few years, the new parish was created from the unparished area that had previously been Rugeley Urban District, the name Brereton and Ravenhill was chosen, and is still used to this day for all official purposes. I would argue that that should therefore be the name of the entry, though, of course, anyone searching for Brereton will be led to the disambigulation page giving a choice of :-

• Brereton, Barbados
• Brereton and Ravenhill, a civil parish in Staffordshire, England
• Brereton, Cheshire

Perhaps, if you think it appropriate, there should be a note in the text stating that local people usually refer to the area simply as Brereton.

Skinsmoke (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the Cheshire example is in fact Brereton-cum-Smethwick fwiw By the way I compiled a list of what I believe to be all the civil parishes in England a couple of years ago if it's of interest.
Geopersona (talk) 08:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Brereton-cum-Smethwick was indeed the name of the Cheshire parish until 1936. In that year it was merged with Davenport, the new parish simply being called Brereton. You might be interested in List of civil parishes in England which links through to the individual counties. Another useful, but often inaccurate, source is A Vision of Britain Through Time. Finally, a comprehensive list of the position in 2001 can be obtained from Census 2001 Neighbourhood Statistics. And, of course, any additional information you can provide is always welcome!Skinsmoke (talk) 12:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Civil parishes in Greater Manchester

I've noticed you've gone through adding references for populations, and thanks for that. You noticed a problem with Worthington, ie: the figure was out by a factor of 10. At first I thought this was my fault as I was the one who reformatted the list of civil parishes in Greater Manchester ages ago and added the references, but even Statistics.gov can't decide what's going on. Have you run into this problem with any other civil parishes?

Also, have you considered joining the Greater Manchester WikiProject? It's a group of editors with a collective interest in improving articles related to Greater Manchester, and members are generally happy to help each other when they can. Nev1 (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nev. Thanks for your note. Must admit Worthington had me baffled! This is the first case I've come across where the Neighbourhood Statistics simply disagree with each other. I don't guarantee the figure is right - it's always possible there's been a new estate built or something but it looks suspiciously like someone at Neighbourhood Statistics got it wrong when compiling the list, especially as both sets of statistics have the same date. Using the extrapolation from the historic census figures, I think the lower figure is going to be correct. If you agree with the lower figure, I'll let you play about with the figure in your table - I'm frightened to touch it!

I'm glad you contacted me, because I wanted to do a bit of work on the List of civil parishes in Greater Manchester but was reluctant to touch it as someone had obviously gone to a lot of effort on it. I'd like to get it into the same basic format as the other pages that form part of List of civil parishes in England (see List of civil parishes in South Yorkshire}, whilst retaining the table and perhaps incorporating some of the introduction into the other pages in the series. Let me know your reaction to the idea.

By the way, I've succumbed and taken up your invite to join the Greater Manchester WikiProject. Skinsmoke (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards a population of 135 because of the Vision of Britain source and the reasons you gave. I'm not familiar with of the list of civil parishes in ... articles, the layout for GM is just something I thought up because it was looking rather neglected. How do you suggest changing the GM article? I don't think it would be worth breaking the table into smaller tables by metropolitan district as there just aren't enough civil parishes to do that, but I can understand why other lists do. At the moment, the South Yorkshire list is looking rather unsourced.

And finally:

Hello, Skinsmoke/Archive 2009, and welcome to Wikiproject Greater Manchester! Thank you for your generous offer to help contribute. I'm sure your input will be much appreciated. I hope you enjoy contributing here and being a Greater Manchester Project Wikipedian! As a project we aim to have all our articles comply with the various editing policies and guidelines. If you are contributing to an article, it is good practice to ensure that it's properly referenced with reliable sources, otherwise any contentious content may be removed by another editor. A good starting point for articles about settlements in Greater Manchester is the WP:UKCITIES guideline. If you have any questions, feel free to discuss anything on the project talk page, or to leave a message on my own talk page. Please remember to sign all your comments, and be bold with your ideas. Again, welcome, and happy editing!

Nev1 (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Norton Radstock

I just undid your changes to Norton Radstock. Firstly copy/paste is not the way to rename an article - use the "move" function as this carries over the full edit history and the talk page. Secondly I dispute the reason for the move - see my reasoning on the talk page. --TimTay (talk) 08:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. The change was done using the "merge" function as a page already existed for "Norton-Radstock" and the "move" function was not therefore available. It was carried out in accordance with the instructions at Help:Merging and moving pages. Prior to the merge I checked that there had been no previous discussion, but the only items of relevance were a discussion on whether there should be articles for the individual towns of Midsomer Norton and Radstock; and a further discussion on whether the article on the village of Clandown should be merged into the main page. There was no reasoning or supporting evidence for chosing "Norton Radstock" rather than "Norton-Radstock".

I am not sure that WP:COMMONNAME and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Widely accepted name are entirely helpful in this sort of case as they refer to the use of widely accepted English names rather than local official foreign language names ("Rome" rather than "Roma" or "Munich" rather than "München").

Bath and North East Somerset District Council's website is not much help either. They seem to use both versions, presumably depending on the personal style of the person who has input the information. Their list of clerks to parish and town councils uses "Norton Radstock" Parish and Town Councils but list of statistics and census information uses "Norton-Radstock". Statistics and Census Information

Other official bodies tend to use "Norton-Radstock", and it was based on this that I changed the name, after consulting The Electoral Commission, Ordnance Survey and Office for National Statistics.

Having said all that, the style preferred by Norton Radstock Town Council is, as you point out, clearly "Norton Radstock", as used in their letter headings and minutes, and on their town badge Finance and General Purposes Committee. On that basis, I agree that should be the version used on Wikipedia. Skinsmoke (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Never straighforward is it? Thanks for your speedy attention. --TimTay (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

List of civil parishes in North Yorkshire

Hello, I noticed that you have added a Notes section to the List of civil parishes in North Yorkshire article with a numbered list but what do each of the numbered items relate to? There needs to be some link into the items in the list for it to make any sense. Keith D (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Be a little patient! Computer crash half-way through editing meant I had to save what I'd done and re-boot. To see what's happening (though it won't be finished tonight) take a look at List of civil parishes in Nottinghamshire. Within the next day or so, each civil parish will be referenced to its former (pre 1974) local authority. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I've chipped in to this discussion at User_talk:Keith_D#List_of_civil_parishes_in_North_Yorkshire. PamD (talk) 09:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that PamD. I've put a response on User_talk:Keith_D#List_of_civil_parishes_in_North_Yorkshire. Really welcome your input on this and like your idea, but with reservations about when it is achievable. Have a look at my comments and see what you think. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

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.

Parishes in GM

Hi, I noticed you added a lot of sources to the above article, but I'm not sure if all the information added is relevant. While it would be useful to mention what preceded the civil parishes, I don't understand why Sale Municipal Borough and Urmston Urban District are mentioned. I don't think any of either became civil parishes, and this applies to most of the boroughs and districts listed. For an idea of which pre-1974 areas line up with the modern parishes, I'd recommend comparing these two images: [1] and [2] (civil parishes are in red). Nev1 (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Nev. Thanks for your note. What I've done is to start to bring List of civil parishes in Greater Manchester into line with the other pages in List of civil parishes in England, the page it was spawned from. Whilst I appreciate that, at present, there are very few civil parishes in Greater Manchester (only the City of London, Greater London and Bristol having fewer, each with zero) it is in a format that allows easy editing in the future as and when new civil parishes are created, without the need for renumbering the lists. It is possible to do this in another way, but that would necessitate future editors finding a citation and tends to look very messy when you have 50 or so parishes in a single rural district. Whilst not ideal for a county at the extreme such as Greater Manchester, it is a compromise format that can fit all counties, taking elements from a number of pages that people had worked on over the years. To see how it fits into the whole, take a look at List of civil parishes in Hampshire, List of civil parishes in North Yorkshire, List of civil parishes in West Yorkshire or List of civil parishes in Kent, the last two being prime examples of counties that have seen a number of new parishes created in formerly unparished areas over the last 15 years. I would hope to get Greater Manchester into the same format eventually, whilst retaining the table and map (so there will be a reference to the unparished areas in each Metropolitan Borough). Skinsmoke (talk) 02:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

While I understand that you've included so many references in an effort to help future editors (those who want to change the article), I don't think it helps the current reader (those who are seeking information). The relevance of all those links is not explained, and probably confusing to someone unfamiliar with the subject. I think we should address the situation as it is now, rather than how it might be in a few years time. There's no need for the references to be lost, they can be placed on the talk page for future reference. I believe that because Greater Manchester has so few civil parishes, it's perhaps inappropriate to treat it like other counties. Nev1 (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If you take a look at the other pages, the relevance becomes fairly obvious. The unparished areas are given in the introduction to each district/borough and these can also be linked to the notes and citations (though I haven't got round to doing that yet). This should help to avoid the problems that have happened on some pages where well-meaning but misguided editors have added ecclesiastical parishes to the lists.

Sorry, but I don't agree that it is inappropriate to treat Greater Manchester like other counties. Many readers will be coming to this page from List of civil parishes in England, having arrived there from civil parish, and would expect an encyclopedia to employ a common style across all subpages. They would certainly not expect List of civil parishes in Greater Manchester to be treated any differently than List of civil parishes in Tyne and Wear or List of civil parishes in West Midlands. Skinsmoke (talk) 02:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't like the current format, but unless I can think of a better one it should stay as it's in line with the other lists. However, while I am a supporter of consistency across wikipedia, not just within articles, I have to say that the standards set by the other lists of civil parishes are very low and are not something to be aspired to. I'll go away and think about the list. Thanks, Nev1 (talk) 13:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You should have seen the standards of the other lists three months ago! An attempt has been made to experiment at putting them into table format. however, the problem for most counties is that this then becomes very difficult to edit for inexperienced editors, particularly as some of the new unitary authorities can have several hundred parishes! As it says at Wikipedia:Lists :-

Although the use of tables to display lists is discouraged—because they provide low-quality contextual information and accessibility and have a more complex notation that hinders editing—there are some instances where they can be useful, such as when three or more columns are required.

Ultimately, I haven't been able to come up with anything better and haven't seen any better suggestions. And the lists are in the correct format per Wikipedia:Lists :-

Bulleted lists

As a matter of style, list items should start with a capital letter. They should not have a punctuation mark such as a period, a comma or a semi-colon at the end, except if a list item is one or more full sentences, in which case there is a period at the end.

This style is appropriate for long lists, or lists of entries which consist of both a link and explanatory text. Also, it is appropriate when the article already has several titles and/or subtitles.

The Title provides a direct edit point, if one enables section editing. It also enables the automatic table of contents system to detect the list. It is not required, however.

Skinsmoke (talk) 14:11, 1 March 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.

Middlesbrough and Yorkshire

Hi Skinsmoke.

Thanks for the info and explanations you provided regards policy.

I still need some guidance tho...

The first paragraph of current page for Middlesbrough is factually incorrect. While Ceremonial Counties do exist - stating that Middlesbrough is in North Yorkshire is not true and certainly misleading.

I second paragraph is literally true so lets leave it alone for now.

To observe Wikipedia policy and avoid misleading readers of the page why not alter the first paragraph to read:

Middlesbrough ( pronunciation (help·info): /ˈmɪdəlzbrə/) is a town in the conurbation of Teesside, England. It forms the majority of the borough of Middlesbrough, which encompasses the town and several outlying villages which have become suburbs.

Mentioning the ceremonial county of North Yorkshire in the first paragraph might make sense but would render part of the second paragraph superflous.

Please let me know your thoughts.

Andy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olive66 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Worcestershire village page moves

I have restored the various village pages you moved in Worcestershire, the original articles were written about the villages in question, not the civil parish. If you wish to create articles for said civil parishes, please write new articles, rather than hijack existing articles. Thanks! Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If that's what you wish, fine, but I suggest you have another look at Catshill. The revision you have made removes the citation for the population, leaves an education section that reads extremely awkwardly, fails to identify whether we are talking about a civil parish or an ecclesiastical parish and fails to clarify that the population refers to the civil parish of Catshill and North Marlbrook. That is not an improvement. The others no quibbles with. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

UA v district on N Somerset

Hi, I noticed on Easton in Gordano that you had changed "Unitary Authority of North Somerset" to "District of North Somerset" & wondered why? I'm not complaining I just want to get it right as I've used this form of words on several civil parishes in North Somerset & want to get them right (I'm working through List of civil parishes in Somerset & planning to do BANES next). I would have thought info about the UA was useful information & worthy of being in the lede?— Rod ^talk 09:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rod. Thanks for your note. The official title of the unitary authorities is District of, Borough of or City of (or in one case County of) and per Wikipedia UK policy, that should be the form used in the lead. However, some articles have got round the problem by starting, for example :-

Easton in Gordano is a village and civil parish in the District of North Somerset, a unitary authority in Somerset, England.

I'm not sure that, in the case of North Somerset, adding the ceremonial county adds any additional information, but generally I think that works quite well. What do you think?

Skinsmoke (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks all right to me although I have had discussions with editors insisting that the ceremonial county should come first - would it be worth asking for consensus at WP:UKG? Also lots of people have been unlinking England as a common word.— Rod ^talk 13:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the examples at naming conventions are enough to quote at any editors insisting that the ceremonial county should come first, and there are thousands of articles in the style I quoted. I have seen a discussion somewhere about unlinking England (think it may have been in the archives of the WikiProject UK Geography, or whatever it's called). The conclusion was that England isn't important enough to be unlinked, and should always be linked! So that puts us in our place! Skinsmoke (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

re parishes

Nice work Skinsmoke, .... did you know there is wiki markup to do Notes .... very similar to the "References" syntax. The avantage is that it autonumbers so that is some adds a new Note then it all updates itself. Victuallers (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Victuallers. Yes I was aware of that. I and a couple of others have experimented with several formats for showing the notes. The problem with the "Notes" syntax is that it looks OK for 2 or 3 cross references but where, as in the case of some rural districts, you have 50 or 60 it not only looks a mess but means that anyone trying to edit the page is faced with a bewildering jumble. The present format is the best we have been able to come up with (and we have searched hard to find a more robust way of doing it). It does however have the disadvantage that, if anyone adds an additional former local authority, the whole lot have to be renumbered. That is why all the former authorities have been referenced, whether or not they have parishes at present, so that if a new parish is created in a previously unparished former area the numbering system doesn't need to be changed. Working back from Worcestershire to Derbyshire, so far the format has proved robust enough not to have any problems. If anyone adds a further reference they , so far, have been adding them as a reference, which of course autonumbers. Skinsmoke (talk) 09:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Brighton and Hove

I think there's a bit of confusion here. The anonymous editor removed Brighton and Hove from the list and I reverted the edit. Brighton and Hove are therefore on the list. David (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Must have been getting late. You're quite right, of course. Apologies! Skinsmoke (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Leeds

I have replied at my talk page. Thanks for the contact. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  15:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, but I've outlined my views at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography#Infobox_uniformity. Chrisieboy (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Flags

It's as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons). Either remove them, they don't really help and are just decoration, or as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons)#Accompany flags with country names add the country name and that looks worse. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 16:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

British Isles

Sorry i didnt read through all of the text in that section of the talk page, just sounded like u were making an argument that people from England / Wales / Scotland dont like the term either and that was another reason for renaming the article. Because of certain editors on that page the conversations are nonsense most of the time. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Welsh county page moves

May I ask why you assume you know more about such places as Conwy (Conwy county borough) than the people who have contributed to those articles? Please see Talk:County Borough of Conwy and refrain from any further changes to Welsh articles such as your ludicrous and unbelievable move of the article on the city of St David's, thankfully now reversed. Enaidmawr (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Your inate racism is showing through, dear. Get over yourself, and learn how to behave on Wikipedia before commenting on Talk pages. Wikipedia encourages anyone to edit, no matter what their gender, race, religion or place of residence. Articles on Welsh places are not the private preserve of a small cabal with pure Welsh blood, nor indeed is Wicipedia, the Welsh version. I suggest you take a look at Megalomaniac point of view. If you have something civil to say in suitable language and tone, I will be more than happy to discuss with you. Skinsmoke (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You have not answered my point at all. And I asked why you thought you know more about those places than the people who have contributed. I didn't mention race or nationality: for all I know you might be Welsh or Walloon, it makes no difference to me at all so please don't call me "racist" as I most emphatically am not. And I think your edit to St David's clearly proves my point, now that you mention it, which you don't, of course. Leaving that diversion aside, you still haven't answered my question. Your moves of these important articles with hundreds of links to them, plus related category names etc, were done without any attempt at having a discussion first to see what other people might think (no matter what their nationality might be). Enaidmawr (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I answered you at Talk:County Borough of Conwy, which is the page you pointed me to. Skinsmoke (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen it and posted a reply there. Enaidmawr (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Skinsmoke - this is an issue that, in my view, overlaps the competencies of both WP:UKGEO and WP:WALES. If you can provide evidence of a clear consensus-based policy decision at WP:UKGEO, we at WP:WALES would like to see it, please. And then we can discuss, calmly, whose views should take precedence, and why. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

There's currently a discussion you may like to participate in at Wikipedia talk:Welsh Wikipedians' notice board#Renaming of key Welsh county articles. Nev1 (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester June Newsletter, Issue XVI

Delivered on 3 June 2009 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

Nev1 (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Cofton Hackett

--Kudpung (talk) 04:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

MSP, FRA

Yes but all airport articles list it as "Minneapolis/St. Paul" and "Frankfurt". Thanks! Charmedaddict (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Well no they don't in fact. See Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport, which is a redirect from Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. The redirect appears to have been set up in 2003.

Frankfurt am Main is a bit more difficult. It appears to be officially called Frankfurt Airport in English (Frankfurt Flughafen in German). However, my understanding was that city names only are used in the Airport-dest-list. If we are going by the name of the airport (as we do in, for example, Malta) then it should be Frankfurt, but if we are going by the name of the city it should really be Frankfurt am Main.

Skinsmoke (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester July Newsletter, Issue XVII

Delivered on 4 July 2009 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

Nev1 (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Defaultsort and diacritics

Just for your future reference, re this edit - the coding key that follows the DEFAULTSORT "magic word" should be stripped of diacritics, so that the article sorts correctly in categories.

If you leave the ó in Córdoba in this case, it would sort after Cz* and not with the Co* words. Might come in useful at some point in the future, you never know! Best, Knepflerle (talk) 01:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I had actually just done a search on the page for Cordoba and tried not to change the links to other languages or image links. That one slipped through, though I must admit I hadn't realised what it did anyway. Sorry! Skinsmoke (talk) 01:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem whatsoever - it's hardly the best-known bit of wiki-syntax! Just thought it was worth pointing out. All the best, Knepflerle (talk) 01:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Burley in Wharfedale

copied from Burley page

Name

There is a difference between the Village of Burley in Wharfedale and the civil parish of Burley. the parish also covers other settlements, including Burley in Woodhead. Burley in Wharfedale does not. As this article relates to the village of Burley in Wharfedale, can I suggest it's name be changed back to the correct name for the village, and if necessary a seperate page created for the Parish of Burley?

Bern

hello, as far as i see, i did not "remove the reference to the 2007 elections." but you are right, it has to be moved from "Demography" to "Politics".--Ajnem (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Dulas

The parish in Herefordshire is not unique in the English wikipedia - it would have saved us both time if you'd checked before reverting. Saga City (talk) 12:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I had checked, but had only come up with Dulas Bay. Somehow I had missed the Dulas disambiguation page completely. Apologies again, it's not even as if it was getting particularly late at night! The onset of swine flu perhaps? Skinsmoke (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologise. Struggling myself; broke specs yesterday morning so can't read screen with 'backup' pair. Best Wishes Saga City (talk) 08:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Move

Hi, I left a message over at Talk:Quincy Homestead#Move?. The article is meant to be about the modern landmark; there's no longer a "Quincy homestead", since it's broken up into several non-contiguous sites around the city and much of it sees various other residential and commercial use these days. I'm working on some historical info. that would fit well into the Quincy, Massachusetts article, but the Quincy Homestead article (and its coordinates) was created for the Dorothy Quincy House, which the city calls the Dorothy Quincy Homestead, not a defunct Quincy Homestead. As someone who's been researching the city's history, I think the current name is misleading and confusing. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I've replied at Talk:Quincy Homestead#Move?. Don't really have a problem with the move. Just thought it needed a proper look taking at it rather than going through "on the nod". Skinsmoke (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries; I understand completely. I'll make the content fixes after the move, as well. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester August Newsletter, Issue XVIII

Delivered on 5 August 2009 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

Nev1 (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

blockquotes.

Hi. At Negative index metamaterials you reformatted a block quotation, replacing {{quote}} with an indent and italics (:''). Please do not do this. The Manual of Style forbids using italics for quotes, and states that block quotes should be formatted using either the HTML <blockquote> tag, or the {{quotation}} or {{quote}} templates.--Srleffler (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not what it says at all. The actual passage is:

Block quotes: As already noted above, we use quotation marks or block quotes (not both) to distinguish long quotations from other text. Multiparagraph quotations are always block-quoted. The quotations must be precise and exactly as in the source. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question.

This clearly is not a multiparagraph quotation, so either format is acceptable per the Manual of Style. Skinsmoke (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Italics aren't acceptable in either format. From the MoS:

For quotations, use only quotation marks (for short quotations) or block quoting (for long ones), not italics. (See Quotations below.) This means that (1) a quotation is not italicized inside quotation marks or a block quote just because it is a quotation, and (2) italicization is not used as a substitute for proper quotation formatting.

Also from the MoS: "A long quote (more than four lines, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of number of lines) is formatted as a block quotation." Basically, if the quote is short you format it inline, with quotation marks around it. If the quote is long (as defined above), you format it as a block quote (separate paragraph, indented from both sides using the tag or template, and no quotation marks). In neither case should italics be used unless they are in the original quote. The quote you edited was too long to put inline, so it has to be formatted as a block quote. --Srleffler (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake; I had missed that completely. Would suggest the passage I quoted is clarified, as it is a little confusing. Am not familiar with long quotes as I have never used them, and had looked to the Manual of Style for help prior to making the edit. A fat lot of good that did! Skinsmoke (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Editing thanks

Thanks for all your good work, so far, at Negative index metamaterials. I hope you continue working on this article. I am going to try to make the "Science background" sections much more readable, so it reads like an encyclopedia, not a thesis or essay. Thx for your feedback regarding this.Ti-30X (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate the message, but this is a bit outside my field! I had a little go at some of the non-science stuff, but most of it I'll leave to you guys! My fields are geography and local government, rather than a physics. Anyhow, I'll keep an eye on how things are going and wish you luck with the article. I detect you've got a lot of goodwill from people on this, and they really want to help you make it work. Enjoy the ride! Skinsmoke (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Meadgrove

Sut mae, Skinsmoke? You've been doing some mighty fine work lately on Wales articles, but I have to disagree with moving Llannerch-y-medd to Llannerch-y-Medd. Left a note at Talk:Llannerch-y-Medd. Cofion gorau, Enaidmawr (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Da iawn, diolch. Bit confused on this one. Do we have a situation where the village and community have different names? And why, for heaven's sake? The capitalisation only seems to have appeared in recent years, the village having previously appeared as Llannerchymedd or Llanerchymedd. I Would suggest we try and clarify with either the community council or Isle of Anglesey County Council.

I have done a search on the county council's website which only adds to the confusion. I have tried to confine the search results to the last five years :-

Community or Town name: Llanerch y Medd from Isle of Anglesey County Council : Register of Deposits by Landowners under Section 31(6) Highways Act 1980

Address and postcode: Mynydd Mwyn Mawr, Llannerch y Medd, LL71 7AG from the same document

Applicant address & postcode: Melin Esgob, Llandyfrydog, Llanerchymedd, LL71 8AY from Isle of Anglesey County Council : Register of Applications to Divert or Extinguish Public Paths, Highways Act 1980 and Town and Country Planning Act 1990

M7 Gwyndy, Llanerchymedd : 395 795 : Igneaidd/Igneous from Isle of Anglesey County Council : Stopped UDP : Safleoedd Mwynau/Mineral Sites

Geographical Group: North Group; Main Centres: Amlwch; Secondary Centres: Cemaes, Llannerch-y-medd; Villages: Bull Bay (Porth Llechog), Penysarn, Llanfechell, Llanfaethlu, Rhosybol, Llanddeusant from Isle of Anglesey County Council : Stopped UDP : Chapter 16 : Housing and Population

Llanerch-y-medd from the same document

B5111 Amlwch to Llanerchymedd from Isle of Anglesey County Council : Stopped UDP : Chapter 12 : Transport

22) Llanerchymedd from Isle of Anglesey County Council : Maps

Jeni Farrell, Llanerch y Medd from Isle of Anglesey County Council : Bridleway Strategy : Consultees

Jeni Farrell at Llannerch y Medd and Gwen McCreadie at Dulas were interested in providing short-term livery with bed and breakfast facilities, however this would only be realistic if there was development of sustainable access – at present though there were places to ride locally these were permissive only and permission could be withdrawn. from the same document.

At the eastern end off the B5111 just north of Llanerchymedd, the path is a decent hedged lane and has a council weight restriction sign for the railway bridge suggesting it was constructed for vehicles. from Isle of Anglesey County Council : Bridleway Strategy : Appendix 6 : Existing Routes and Routes Suspected of having ‘Higher Rights’

Llannerch-y-medd from Isle of Anglesey County Council : Evidence Base : Demography

7 of the 31 pupils [23%] on roll in March 2009 lived outside the catchment area, 1 at Bodffordd, 1 from the Llannerch y Medd area, 4 live in Gwalchmai and 1 in Bryngwran. from Isle of Anglesey County Council : Primary School Rationalisation Consultation : Ysgol Llandrygarn and Ysgol Tŷ Mawr

63 : Llannerch-y-medd - Bangor from Isle of Anglesey County Council : Bus Strategy

Town/Village: Llannerch-y-Medd; Location: High Street; Annual/Seasonal: Annual; Disabled Facilities: Yes from Isle of Anglesey County Council : Public Conveniences on Anglesey

By that stage I was losing the will to live. The only conclusion I can draw is that people spell it however they are feeling at a particular moment, and that that feeling may change a few lines further into the report!

Skinsmoke (talk) 23:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as its likely spelling by the man - or county council! - in the street goes, this is indeed the case. The rule I gave, which we follow on cy: (or at least try to!), is the generally accepted one at an academic level in contemporary Welsh. However we have always been non-Conformists of one variety or other and you won'r need to go far to find someone who'll say "That's nonsense! This is how we've always spelt it!". I can only say that, personally, I find Llannerchymedd easier to live with than 'Llannerch-y-Medd', which just looks clumsy (as does 'Llannerch Y Medd', although some people skip the hyphens altogether the capital 'Y' is not neccesary). In a sense, therefore, there is no single absolute authority, so unless the Welsh government issues a decree on the spelling of Welsh placenames - probably lead to riots in the street! - there is no one 'official version' in cases like this and I certainly wouldn't rate the ONI very highly as an authority on Welsh placenames. There is a dictionary of Welsh placenames, recently published, but I'm just a poor scholar and can't afford to buy it so don;t have it here. A search in the Melville Richards database - here - gives some interesting historical examples but it's not intended to be an authority on the correct modern spelling. Enaidmawr (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'd prefer to go by whatever is right in Welsh (I'd also prefer Ynys Môn to Isle of Anglesey, but don't see much chance of that happening.) On the whole I think we English are lazy when it comes to foreign words, but don't really like to offend, and most of us try to get our heads round Porthmadog, Conwy and Y Felinheli once we realise what's going on. Incidentally, I have friends whose dotty aunt lived in Port Dinorwig. They kept getting cards from her saying that she had moved to the same house in Y Felinheli; they thought she was getting a touch of Alzheimers until I pointed out that she hadn't actually moved, but the village name had changed!

By the way, don't (in this case), blame the Office for National Statistics and Ordnance Survey too much. The procedure with communities, as with parishes in England, is that the naming is down to the county council. Whatever they chose they are free to use. If the name changes, usually in response to a request from the community concerned, there is a procedure where they notify the Royal Mail, Office for National Statistics, Ordnance Survey, the Assembly Government and Boundary Commission for Wales, and it is done. If the Ordnance Survey and Office for National Statistics are using Llanerch-y-Medd, it will be because that is what Isle of Anglesey County Council has notified them to use (and in this case, there will have been a formal name change at some time since 1973, otherwise it would still be Llanerchymedd).

But what about other similar names in Wales, such as Llanfihangel y Creuddyn; Llanfihangel-y-Pennant (my fault, though I was influenced by Llanfihangel-y-Pennant_Church.jpg‎ (800 × 600 picsel, maint y ffeil: 113 KB, ffurf MIME: image/jpeg)); Llanfihangel-ar-Arth; Llanfihangel Rhos-y-Corn; Betws-y-Coed, Betws yn Rhos, Troed y Rhiw, Cwm y Glo, Pen-y-Groes, Llanfair-yn-Neubwll, Llanbedr-y-Cennin, Tal-y-Cafn, Cwrt y Gollen, Llanrhaeadr-ym-Mochnant, Llansantffraid-ym-Mechain, Llanarmon-yn-Iâl and Tafarn-y-Gelyn. Strangely, just doing a quick check through the various counties, the only one that appears to consistently get the capitalisation correct is....Monmouthshire?????

I give up; what do you want to do? Skinsmoke (talk) 01:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no easy solution. We're faced with the same situation on Welsh Wikipedia. Where several spellings exist with no clear consensus we tend to use an online resource - which I forgot about last night! - published by Canolfan Bedwyr, Bangor University. This can be regarded as an authoritative source. It's mainly intended for people to look up Welsh/English English/Welsh versions of placenames in Wales, when they exist, but can also be used to find the standard Welsh spelling. Very useful. Go here and use the search box and you'll find they give the spelling 'Llannerch-y-medd'. I'm surprised at Cyngor Ynys Môn - they really should know better, especially with a bunch of placename specialists on their doorstep in Bangor - but then given the utter shambles the council's been in for years now perhaps it's not so surprising after all! Checked a few other resources. Llannerch-y-medd is the spelling used on the map Cymru published by Cyhoeddiadau Stad, which gives its authorities, including two important books (which I don't have, damn it!), Rhestr o Enwau Lleoedd (Univ. of Wales Press) and Yr Enwau Cymraeg ar Leoedd by Bruce Griffiths (ditto), as well as the consultative committee on Welsh placenames set up under the old Welsh Office. Apart from one or two names I think the map and its sources are very reliable (don't know if it's still in print - I've had my copy for years and it's getting a bit dog-eared). Atlas Môn (Cyngor Gwlad Môn, 1972) also gives Llannerch-y-medd: this is easily the best resource of its kind for the island, even if it was published nearly 40 years ago. Maybe I should copy and paste this to the talk page, for future reference? Enaidmawr (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

PS Quick note on some of the above placenames: Llanrhaeadr-ym-Mochnant, Llansantffraid-ym-Mechain, Llanarmon-yn-Iâl are correct as Mochnant, Mechain and Iâl are places (cymydau/commotes, as it happens). Of course, some might insist on omitting the hyphens, but there we go... Enaidmawr (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

As also are (y) Creuddyn in Llanfihangel y Creuddyn, Arth in Llanfihangel-ar-Arth, Rhos in Betws yn Rhos/Betws-yn-Rhos, and Deubwll in Llanfair-yn-Neubwll. Enaidmawr (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Aw, don't leave me in suspense! What about the two "big" ones: Betws-y-Coed and Pen-y-Groes? The only offline resource I have, which has served me well over the years, is Atlas y Cymry, published in the 1970s. My copy is falling to pieces now (I got it as a Sunday School prize, which caused a few hassles for the poor bookshop owner in Stockport: it took him months to get hold of!), and it has lots of mistakes in it; but it helped to cement my interest in Welsh placenames. Feel free to copy and paste, by the way. Skinsmoke (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Have changed the contents of the article. Now just need to tackle the title, for which we'll need an Administrator. Nev1 is usually very good at this sort of thing, but before I contact him, do we also need to change Llanfihangel-y-Pennant, home of that Bible bashing girl, back as well? In that particular case, it's not quite so bad, as the disambiguator Llanfihangel-y-pennant, Abergynolwyn was clearly wrong as Abergynolwyn is part of Llanfihangel-y-pennant, not the other way round. It was a bit like having Porthmadog, Borth-y-Gest, though I suppose that should be Borth-y-gest? Skinsmoke (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

PS I've just looked up Llanfihangel-y-Pennant on Enwau Cymru. I got it right!!!!!! It's the other one in Dolbenmaen that's wrong!!!!! Feeling really smug now ;-) Skinsmoke (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Llongyfarchiadau! Pennant is actually a little bit trickier as it could be a reference to a simple geographical feature (pen + nant, rather obviously!) but is more often than not a placename (cf. Pennant Melangell in Powys). The two "big ones" should not be capitalised, strictly speaking, i.e. Betws-y-coed, Pen-y-groes, as coed and [c]roes are common nouns not placenames. Hwyl, Enaidmawr (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Myanmar/Burma

Thanks for your input on your naming issue. As you suggested, I created a section over at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Burmese), and linked to it at a few other relevant talk/project pages. I hope some people will join in the debate, I think this is an important step in making the Burma project more consistent. As for myself, I'm gonna concentrate on doing some article edits. Too much talking, not enough new material from me lately, or so I feel. Looking forward to your contributions to the discussion, cheers. Pim Rijkee (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Negative index metamaterials

On August 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Negative index metamaterials, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Dyma Lewys o'r diwedd!

Well blow me down with a cywydd, Lewys Daron's turned up on English Wikipedia! I'll have a look at the Aberdaron article later on, as dinner is calling. Hwyl, Enaidmawr (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Strange how these things happen, isn't it? You're a seren! Skinsmoke (talk) 22:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - and London Oxford Airport

Thank you for taking the time to welcome me to Wikipedia, and for the links and advice! I have responded to your comments on the Talk: London Oxford Airport page.

The finer points of Wikipedia can seem complex to a beginner. Your good-humoured help is much appreciated. All the best, SkyeWaye (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

We've all been there - and most of us are still learning! Enjoy the journey! Skinsmoke (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Anglesey

Skinsmoke - re 'jumping the gun' - why did you change the info regarding Anglesey's accession to the two international Geoparks networks? Membership of the European Geoparks Network automatically gives the Geopark membership of the UNESCO Global network too - following the principles of the Madonie agreement of 2004. Anglesey gained membership of both earlier this year. cheers Geopersona (talk) 11:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Because that isn't what the source you quoted says. The rewording is in line with the source. Skinsmoke (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, that is indeed what it says - though for most intents & purposes GeoMon is now a member of the Global Network; the ratification formalises the process. Should be able to update the text soon to reflect the position after the UNESCO August meeting. Geopersona (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it's just a formality and may well have been ratified by now as we're nearing the end of August. Must admit I quite enjoyed wandering round the GeoMon website, so thanks for awakening my interest! Incidentally, anything else you could add to the Anglesey page? It's not a particularly great page at the moment! Look forward to the update coming through. Skinsmoke (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token dabd202189a31e982bc5e86334e05c87

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Marr, South Yorkshire

No problems. Note also that the protection of that page has now been lifted, so you can now edit it yourself. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  17:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:NC

"Let's just say that, as it stands, it will never make it to Good article or Featured article."

LOL!

Born2cycle has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

--Born2cycle (talk) 01:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It just had to be said. Skinsmoke (talk) 01:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Removal of exceptions to "use common names" passage.

This is to inform you that the removal of exceptions to the use of Common Names as the titles of Wikipedia articles from the the Talk:Naming_Conventions policy page, is the subject of a referral for Comment (RfC). This follows recent changes by some editors.

You are being informed as an editor previously involved in discussion of these issues relevant to that policy page. You are invited to comment at this location. Xandar 22:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Surprise for you!

Hello, Skinsmoke. You have new messages at talk:November 2009 Great Britain and Ireland floods.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mjroots (talk) 09:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

What, me?

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		Awarded to all editors of the November 2009 Great Britain and Ireland floods article, for showing great teamwork in expanding and correcting the article during the time it was on the Main Page as an In The News item. Well done all! Mjroots (talk) 09:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you! :) Mjroots (talk) 05:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You all deserve the barnstar. There was great co-operation and negligible vandalism during the time the article was on the Main Page. Mjroots (talk) 05:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Borough moves

I noticed you moved some articles such as Halton (borough) to Borough of Halton. I don't necessarily disagree with these moves, but it is far from consistently applied. Was there a discussion that led to these moves? We were discussing at WP:UKDISTRICTS the possibility of renaming such articles, but didn't come to an agreement. MRSC (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

There was a consensus some considerable time ago at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography that the Borough of Placename, City of Placename, London Borough of Placename and Metropolitan Borough of Placename format was the preferred style, but, as you say, this has not been consistently applied. Strangely, the preferred style for districts is Placename District (why not District of Placename for consistency?). A different style was recently adopted in Wales (and is in the naming conventions}, which is Placename County Borough. I wasn't aware of the recent discussions at WP:UKDISTRICTS but, if a decision is made to confirm the above (or to change it), I do think it needs implementing across the board - it isn't such a massive task, after all: there are only 201 shire districts plus 55 unitary authorities, not all of which would need renaming. The metropolitan boroughs and London boroughs seem to follow the agreed format anyway.

In Scotland, the pattern is to use Placename, with only Falkirk and Stirling deviating from this, using Placename (council area). If any change was proposed there, I would suggest widening the discussion to include something like the Scottish Wikipedians Notice Board or whatever they call it. It probably isn't worth the effort in Northern Ireland, as it looks likely that the whole structure will be changing shortly.

Whatever is decided needs to go in the conventions at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), which is the first place most editors tend to look for advice.

Let me know what's decided as I don't always get time to keep an eye on all the umpteen places these discussions take place! Skinsmoke (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Have just had a look at the discussions at WP:UKDISTRICTS. These appear to have grown out of the long-running arguments about whether to split or merge districts. I do think you need to consider further the naming of whatever articles result. Whilst both Borough of Placename or even Placename Borough (and the same for all the other variations} can be heard or read in normal life, I don't think I have ever, outside Wikipedia, come across Placename (borough). It looks uncomfortable, and during discussions on the Welsh authorities, the format Placename (county borough) proved to be positively hated (as was County Borough of Placename). On balance, I think I would come down on City of Placename (to avoid confusion with the likes of Salt Lake City) and possibly London Borough of Placename (as Placename London Borough may be a little awkward), but Placename Borough, Placename District, Placename Metropolitan Borough, Placename County Borough and Placename Council Area where the simple Placename is inappropriate. Skinsmoke (talk) 01:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token 35d9c7b3d6ddbd42daaf8e48f24593ce

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Twin towns or Sister cities?

Hi Skinsmoke, I though I'd let you know that there is a new discussion open on proposed name modification (Twin towns, Sister cities or both?) on this talk page. Your comments would be very much appreciated -- Marek.69 ^talk 01:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)