User talk:Nev1/Archives/January–February 2009

Listed buildings in Runcorn, Cheshire and Scheduled Monuments
As you are an expert in this sort of thing (writing articles and lists and getting them featured), I should welcome your advice on the above two subjects. I have just re-formatted the Runcorn list. Would you be so kind as to have a look at it, and suggest any improvements, etc. I'm thinking of submitting it for peer review and then as a FLC (if people think that it is appropriate). I should welcome your comments on its talk page (I am asking some more Wikifriends to contribute and would like all the comments to be together).

I should like to build a list of the Scheduled Monuments in Cheshire but have been unable to find a source which provides this without too much difficulty. Pastscape gives details of over 3,000 sites in Cheshire, but does not tell me which are scheduled - unless I trawl through all of them (does it?). Local authority sites (Cheshire CC, Halton BC) do not seem to release the info easily. Is there any easy way, or do I have to work through what sources I can find? You can answer this one here. Happy New Year. Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to let you know I e-mailed Jill Collens and received a reply from one of her staff giving me access (user name + password) to a Cheshire CC website Revealing Cheshire's Past which contains a wealth of information. Unfortunately searching for Scheduled gave nothing and Monument gave nearly 3000 hits.  So a lot to work through but it looks easier to navigate than Pastscape.  You cannot use this site as a reference because it is password protected but there should be an equivalent record in Pastscape to use for articles and lists.  If its any use to you I'm sure you can be given access.  Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for your input since yesterday. I must say I am getting rather irritated; we seem to be getting deeper and deeper into a bog.  And I take objection to people who put their comments out of chronological order; and don't do it all at once (you may have realised that SRX and Truco is the same person); and s/he has not always got the commas right!  I've been having problems with an unstable broadband connection (and a virus) which have not helped.  But both seem to be improving today (have I spoken too soon?). I intend over the weekend to make the descriptions into full sentences - but it will be difficult to avoid a lot of "This is..."; if you can improve anything I do (and if you feel like it) please do so.  Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Made it after all as a FL - the first for WikiProject Cheshire. Many thanks for your help and encouragement. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Unblocking
Thank you for unblocking my account. My partner assured me that it had probably been done in error; your message showed that he was correct. Thank you, also, for the comments regarding the polite and courteous manner in which he wrote to you. It takes only a few minutes on Wikipedia to see how some people can become very angry and rude in what they write. Most of the time people don't mean to hurt or offend others, but then things sometimes escalate and intellectual blindness takes hold. I both appreciate and accept your apology. Happy administering. Iktae (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

A Question
Checking my talk-page, it appears that you have deleted it for some sort of page-move. Why did you do so, and what page-move is this? Thanks!  Marlith  (Talk)   02:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, it's no problem. Just a confusion. A Grawp attack...  Marlith  (Talk)   03:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Pollard for GA
Thanks for letting me know. I'll put it on the watchlist and perhaps you could let me know if I can be specifically helpful: I have all the relevant Wisdens here, for instance, if there are fact queries. I've spent a happy few hours this weekend tackling David Evans, three of them, to be precise, plus one that Bobo had already done but which needed moving! Kind regards. Johnlp (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Mashrafe Mortaza
With Christmas etc, I must admit I forgot all about the GA review. My apologies for the delay and I will finish it this week. Once again, sorry. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 02:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries, it's easy to forget about reviews sometimes. Cheers, Nev1 (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Now GA. well done! Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 10:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Map of all coordinates
It appears that it IS just as easy as adding to the article (try it). And then to get the items named you add name=xxxx to the coordinates template - like 53.3332°N, -2.6957°W. But the naming does not come up immediately; apparently it can take Google up to 24 hours to update it. I've just added names to all the coordinates in the article and they don't show yet. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester January Newsletter, Issue XIII

 * Excellent newsletter. Thanks for putting this together! Reads very well, --Jza84 | Talk  12:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Blimey, two GAs in one evening
Well done on Nico Ditch. Don't want Jza84 getting too far ahead of us with his Oldham articles. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That one slipped under the radar, I'd have completely missed it if you hadn't told me! I think we can manage to stay ahead of Oldham ;-) Nev1 (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm watching! --Jza84 | Talk  01:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Re
Your improvements are definitely good for the article. I would like to see a shot of the real church for comparison, though (like a shot that helps to compare the interior in the game screenshot to the real-life interior. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually left a request earlier on the talk page for their project, and while someone agreed to do it, nothing came of it, unfortunately (you can find the discussion on the latest archive). - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Yorkshirian
A discussion has been initated there and I'd welcome your input. However, I'll understand if you don't want to get involved. --Jza84 | Talk  03:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)
The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Danebury
Sorry about the fuss over Danebury last night. I just happened to notice that it had been listed and decided to take a quick look. I saw a few bits and pieces I thought needed attention and I was working on them when Pyrotec arrived on my talk page. Anyway, I've fixed what I thought needed to be fixed, and I've got absolutely no intention of taking the article to WP:GAR. It's a nice, informative, piece of work, well up to the GA standard. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

PS. I actually misread the title as Daresbury, which is what drew my attention to the article in the first place. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for helping out, there wasn't any fuss really. I'll stay on the article, there's more stuff to add to it than I thought to begin with. Nev1 (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Castle Hotel, Halton
Saved; thanks for your support. This means that all the Grade II* listed buildings in Listed buildings in Runcorn, Cheshire now have articles. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Your note
Please understand the different between British point of view and neutral point of view before erroneously reverting any more of my correct edits. O Fenian (talk) 01:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NPOV and WP:TERRORIST, then desist in portraying British point of view as fact. O Fenian (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have any reliable sources saying it wasn't an act of terrorism? Nev1 (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You're a braver man than me Nev1. Irish related articles are a complete nightmare, and I avoid them whenever possible. In the case of Shambles Square though, I think you're absolutely right. Anyone who seriously argues that wasn't a terrorist attack is either speaking a different language or trying to reinvent history. I'm voting for trying to reinvent history. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note of support. What else can an event that targeted innocent people be called? But most importantly, there are reliable sources to back it up. Nev1 (talk) 02:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not need reliable sources to remove a point of view term that should only be used when attributed. O Fenian (talk) 14:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * More than 3 reversions in a single day, on an article that could quite easily be thought of as dealing with The Troubles (for which you have already been warned about edit-warring). I think you need to be careful, O Fenian.  DDStretch    (talk)  00:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sale
Bloody hell, bad luck mate. I admire the persistence of the people of Sale though! Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm slightly bewildered, perhaps it will be rstarted as there wasn't really more than the standard image and sources check. And Sandy frequently reminds people that she never closes a debate because of lack of reviews.
 * I'm considering moving the article to boomerang because of the number of comebacks this articles made. Nev1 (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see the article history has been updated. Nev1 (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Commiserations on Sale, it was worth another shot. There's something fundamentally wrong with the article though, or at least the way it's written, but I'm not entirely sure I fully understand what, or how best to go about fixing it. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It seems to be lacking something of the wow-factor. I wonder how we can ensure this passes next time? Hmmmmm. Very sorry this didn't get promoted - I had the nomination page watchlisted, but nothing much happened. :S --Jza84 | Talk  01:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well there's plenty of other stuff to do for WP:GM, I'll leave the Sale article for a while and hope inspiration strikes. Nev1 (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * When I can locate my copies of the volumes on The Place Names of Cheshire (I was ambushed so that a "tidy up" could be done of the room where I do my computer stuff, and now I can't find anything) I'll see if there is anything on the origins of the name "Sale". If there are other places dealt with in the article for which such information could also be added, let me know. It would not be too much, but every little helps (I can't believe I just typed that.)  DDStretch    (talk)  01:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, there's Ashton upon Mersey, an area of Sale that was originally a separate settlement to talk about. Alternative derivations apart from the Old English ones given would be interesting. I'm wondering if I've crossed the line between being comprehensive and trivial in the article. To take an example, at the 4th epicAdam questioned the worth of mentioning: In the 18th century, it was thought that Ashton upon Mersey might have been the site of a Roman station next to the River Mersey called Fines Miaimae & Flaviae. However, this was based on the De Situ Britanniae, a manuscript forged by Charles Bertram, and there is no evidence to suggest the station ever existed. My argument was essentially I thought it was interesting, but thinking again, it's just not that important to the town, and since it was proven to be false even less so. That kind of thing should be left to the local history books, after all that's the purpose of a further reading section and a bibliography, so the reader can look for more information if they so wish.
 * I think it's perhaps excessive detail that's making the prose feel a bit turgid at times. And I've picked up a nasty habit from working on a few cricket articles: not recognising when statistics aren't useful :S Nev1 (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Everything is in place for Sale to get FA status, it just needs some restructing and some more, well, sexy/sexier images if I'm honest (some of the current ones are a little banal, and don't do the town justice). I think the history section needs subdividing into a few parts, so it doesn't look as difficult a read. I might try and have a small blast at this. We can get this to FA, there's no reason at all why not. --Jza84 | Talk  03:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

(<-) Just had a play in my sandbox with some Sale material - I've rewritten the lead and wondered what you thought? I've only passed through Sale so even if you liked this, I've no doubt it'd need tinkering with. --Jza84 | Talk  02:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I like what you've done with the lead and it certainly flows better. I hope you don't mind that I've had a little copyedit of it in your sandbox, swapping the order of something and trimming a little excess detail. I think it should be mentioned that Sale Sharks originated in the town, although they're now in Stockport, and probably Sale Harriers too, although they've also moved. Nev1 (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem at all. I was just worried about the flow of things rather than the content. I firmly believe that everything we need to achieve FA with Sale is already in the article, it's just a matter of presentation, wording and style now. I swapped the lead image too (you may have noticed); If I'm honest that version of the town hall has my personal preference (has more detail and is easier to see the scale of the building), but I won't lose any sleep over any changes you want - it's something closer to your heart than mine, I know. Feel free to copy and paste when you're ready.


 * I'll take a look at the other sections too, but I want to hold you to randsom for improving Salford too ;) --Jza84 | Talk  16:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I can understand why you prefer the image in your sandbox, the ideal image would have that angle and detail and the colours of the current one. I'll probably paste it over sometime today and keep use the image you suggest, thanks.


 * And I've already started looking through Google books ;-) Nev1 (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Cheshire
Just to say thanks for all the sterling work you and Espresso Addict have been doing on reviving the project. I feel guilty that I do so little in this area, but it is one in which I have little expertise. I'd rather just write and improve articles, rather than do this behind-the-scenes stuff (although you manage to do both, which I find amazing). Keep it up and I'll contribute bits from time to time. I would personally rather have a wide range of "good enough" articles, than spend too much time on seeking the glories of GA and FA (with all the aggro that creates). Best wishes. Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There are different ways in measuring success, and WP:CHES is the only project I know of with more start-class articles than stub-class, which must be the "good enough" policy at work. I feel a little guilty myself about not having tried to revitalise the project before, but now seems as good a time as any. I don't expect every member to come out of the woodwork and start editing Cheshire articles by the truckload, but I'm hoping more people will get involved. Whatever the result of this, WP:CHES is still one of the better UK wikiprojects, most don't seem to have more than one or two active editors. Thanks, Nev1 (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's interesting. I have a feeling that some of the start-class articles are at least C-class.  Most of the church articles I wrote or expanded were self-assessed as start-class (maybe I shouldn't) because they were more than a stub and I don't think C-class existed then.  If someone sometime has the time and inclination to look through them, I think some could be promoted eg St John the Baptist's Church, Chester - and that may go for some articles in other categories as well. They can be found here and here.  Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As I mention on the talk page, I wouldn't be too bothered about people assessing their own articles - although I should really specify more experienced editors - because it cuts down on time asking for other people to do it for you. You may be worried about assessing your own articles, presumably because you're worried about bias, but that worry is one of the reasons I'd trust you not to introduce bias. I'll take a look at a few of those articles when I get the chance. Nev1 (talk) 14:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with that. The only category where I think third-party input is required is A-class, but by the time an article gets to that level you may as well just take it to FAC anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheshire coat of arms
Hi. I noticed your message on jza's talk page plus the conversation here regarding the Cheshire coat of arms. I would point out that the field of the arms should in fact be blue (azure), not green. Note the council's logo and website colour scheme in blue and gold, which are the correct colours. The image on the county council website is pretty poor quality artistically, and probably scanned from a discoloured document of rather ancient vintage. See the better image here. As far as free or fair use is concerned I think you would have difficulties as the arms belong to the county council. However after April 1st they will ownerless! Lozleader (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the link you gave me just 404'd :S What we did for WP:MERSEY was ask someone to redraw the coat of arms of Merseyside County Council, although I suppose they don't own it any more... argh, fair use makes my head spin sometimes. On the upside, April isn't too long to wait if we're not even allowed to redraw the COA. Nev1 (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I can see the link now, thanks. Um, WP:CHES are going to be a bit surprised, they used the green on the portal because they based the colour scheme on the coat of arms on the council website. Oops, easily corrected though. Nev1 (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Whitefield entry status
Hi, thanks for your elucidation regarding notable people & treatment thereof. Just thought I would mention to you that I'm still researching the Whitefield entry & have garnered quite a bit more from published books during the last few weeks, which will be added in due course. Got an absolute bargain of a book about Stand Chapel last week - £10 for a "very good" condition 1893 book (yes, 1893 - no typo). To use an American term, this is just touching base, so you do not think I've disappeared completely. I do appreciate the support that you have offered & the advice given. Same to Jaz84. Sitush (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Questionnaire
In an effort to assess the progress of Wikiproject Cheshire, it has been decided to send a questionnaire to members. To answer, please copy this questionnaire and paste your answers on the answer page. While participation is, of course, not compulsory, thoughtful answers will help the project to develop and improve. Thank you.


 * 1. The project is always looking for new members, so we want to find out which ways of attracting and approaching potential members work best. Do you remember how and why you joined?
 * Answer:


 * 2. How would you describe your involvement in the project? What activities do you undertake and how often do you edit Cheshire-related article?
 * Answer:


 * 3. Do you feel like you receive adequate support/contact from project members?
 * Answer:


 * 4. The project talk page is intended to be the hub of the project, where members discuss articles and help each other improving them. Until very recently it has been almost inactive, but do you check the project talk page?
 * Answer:


 * 4a. If the talk page was more active, would you get involved in discussions there?
 * Answer:


 * 5. When viewing Cheshire-related articles, are there any issues that have stood out as needing attention or frustrated you? (Traditional counties POV, poor coverage about a particular subject, vandalism going unnoticed etc)
 * Answer:


 * 6. Maintaining the Cheshire portal is one of the Cheshire WikiProject's main aims, providing a display of the best and most up to date articles that are part of the project. There is currently a drive to promote it to featured status, but input from a wide range of members is needed. Do you have the portal on your watchlist?
 * Answer:


 * 7. Would you be interesting in subscribing to a newsletter covering North West England, with details of work done by WikiProjects representing Cheshire, Greater Manchester, and Merseyside?
 * Answer:


 * 8. Finally, are there any improvements or initiatives you'd like to see WP:CHES undertake, or general comments you'd like to make?
 * Answer:

SSSIs
I can't see myself ever running out of ideas of what to do, but thanks for nudging me in the direction of doing more work on the important topic of SSSIs. I got put off last year when the English Nature website was down for ages and none of the detailed site descriptions were available, but that seems to be fixed now. Improving Delamere Forest, which I believe has an SSSI, has been on my hit list for ages, but I never seem to remember to take my camera when the weather's nice, and I must get around to loading some of my pictures from Fenn's, Whixall and Bettisfield Mosses NNR, though that's in Shropshire/Wales of course. I'm not a huge fan of FLs, largely because the tenor of the average entry makes them a laughing stock, but improving the list along the lines of the templates you suggest would indeed be helpful. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Rowland Egerton-Warburton, etc
Congratulations on the newsletter and questionnaire. The respondents to date have been the expected ones!

Recently an article was started on Rowland Egerton-Warburton, builder of the present Arley Hall (which I should have done myself, but didn't get round to it). It was a cut-and-paste job from the ODNB, with no inline refs, written by an administrator; I assessed it as Start. Anyway, I've expanded it quite a lot, added inline citations, an image etc. and submitted it for DYK. Perhaps you would have a look at it and re-assess it. Also it's another biography for the Cheshire project.

Having ploughed through the near-3,000 items on Discovering Cheshire's Past, Jill Collens has e-mailed herself suggesting the website which has been created by English Heritage and which has a section on scheduled monuments. I've registered and tried to download the file, but it's a .zip file and I haven't managed to make it into English yet. Anyway I thought you might be interested in the website and may be able to get some sense out of it. Cheers. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The scheduled monument project has turned into a monster! I've spent days extracting the info from Revealing (not Discovering) Cheshire's Past and there's more than I expected.  I haven't done a full count but it must be around 200 items.  With references from this source and from Pastscape it now totals 118KB, and that's without lead, key or photos.  The servers are now not keen to take further edits (I get the "WP has a problem" page).  So it will have to be split into at least two lists.  I'm thinking of 1006 as the cutting date; the source gives this as the start of the "Medieval" period.  Thought you might like to have a progress report. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Umm... Areas would be an idea, but how? Logically, with the coming division of Cheshire, East and West would be a possibility.  But then, what about Warrington and Halton (with I think 1 or 2, and 3 SMs respectively)?  Also I've expanded Rowland Egerton-Warburton quite a bit more (he's much more interesting than I had realised) and am wondering about taking it towards GAC.  What do you think? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Worsley
They're derived counts - the tables say "Value derived by aggregating data supplied using the Neighbourhood Statistics Geography Hierarchy". Due to a head full of still organic cider (4th pint) I'm not entirely clear what that means. But then again the monitor appears to be dancing in front of me, so what do I know...

I had considered working out percentages, or changing everything in the table to a count, but more cider beckons.... Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Map
WikiProject Greater Manchester/Map is now fixed! I just made the edits individually rather than as a group and that (for some odd reason) seems to have fixed things. :) --Jza84 | Talk  01:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Peterborough
Have a look at the discussion page. I'm really upset about what he's saying GrumpyGuts (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No need to get upset over it, Chrisieboy just prefers the old images and is being reasonable. I can understand why he prefers the old ones, for example the guildhall picture would be great if only it wasn't so small. Nev1 (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand that but if you've seen the cat fight we've had; he's doing it because I've taken them. These images will look so much better but he's good at putting them in. I'm upset because he wants to continue a war with me, not because he doesn't like the images

GrumpyGuts (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I did make the changes in Photoshop. Washed out meaning? :) GrumpyGuts (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunatly my camera is the some where you can't change the exposure.

Is this one better? There is now some blue sky visible GrumpyGuts (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, thank you. I'll upload that one GrumpyGuts (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Newsletter
Hi

Sry, didn't realise it was only just done - my girlfriend always said I was too quick off the mark lol

thanks --Chaosdruid (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries, better eager than apathetic :-) Nev1 (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a great newsletter Nev1, and a great idea to summarise the project's 2008. This bit made me laugh: "This is undoubtedly the noisiest project in the UK and it's strength comes from the wide range of interests of its many members". Very true, I think. What's also becoming apparent, I think, is that we've reached a stage where we can begin to leverage each other's work, as in the Worsley connection to Worsley Man, because we're each doing our little bits properly. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Cheshire and Wales edits
We may have some drama soon. User:Owain has been violating WP:BRD again by making contentious edits to Wales without any discussion, and also reimplementing the changes to Cheshire East and Cheshire West and Chester, which I think I commented about to which you replied previously, once again without any discussion and with a rather terse and unhelpful edit summary. I gave him some advice on his talk page, but I wouldn't be able to do much from now on, I think, as it may be claimed that I am too involved. DDStretch   (talk)  19:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have been vaguely aware of Owain's edits, although most of the pages he edits are not on my watchlist. Many seem to be infrequently visited pages of wikipedia, such as list of castles in Wales where he insisted historic counties be used. Owain also seems to be misunderstanding the situation regarding Cheshire (that the 4 new unitary authorities replace the 7 current ones rather than splitting Cheshire into two new counties) and have left a comment on his talk page pointing this out. Nev1 (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Scheduled Monuments in Greater Manchester
It's coming along well due to your hard work. By the way, you don't need footnote A any more - your coordinates have made it obsolete. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've tidied that up now. I think I was lucky that I was able to expand the lead, with only 39 monuments it wasn't too hard in the end. I think it stands a decent chance at FLC, and it would be nice to see it pass. Nev1 (talk) 12:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a thought. I see that the latest SM is dated 1908.  Are you sure there is nothing more modern?  I have found 4 SMs in Cheshire which are heavy anti-aircraft battery sites, or similar, relating to WWII and the Cold War. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Pretty sure, each borough maintains its own list (or at least states how many SAMs it has) and the numbers tally up. (I realised that two sites in Bolton were scheduled together - pastscape sometimes provides the SM No. but not often enough.) Nev1 (talk) 12:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Pink Pylon
You deleted the Pink Pylon article recently, and if I remember correctly the article was about the pylon mentioned in Electricity pylon. If it was, could the article be restored as WP:CSD doesn't apply to it. — Snigbrook 00:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that, I have restored the article because it did not quite fit CSD A7 which is for people, organisations etc. I don't think it's notable, if I were to place a WP:PROD template on the article would you remove it or should I take it straight to AfD? Nev1 (talk) 00:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, I don't think it's notable enough for a separate article (and it would probably be a permastub), I was thinking of merging/redirecting to where it is mentioned in the Electricity pylon article. — Snigbrook 01:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There's not really enough to merge, but a redirect might be a good solution. However, in popular culture etc sections are often prone to change and removal, and in the future someone may think that the pylon is not even notable enough for that subsection. It's up to you, I don't mind either way, but it struck me as an not something that should be in an encyclopedia (there really should be a speedy deletion category for this kind of article). Nev1 (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Demographics
Looking OK? Any idea where population data could be obtained from? I've got a horrid feeling that it gets mixed up with Gatley after 1871... Thanks for your help with this, best wishes,  Majorly  talk  02:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)
The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

map
Thanks, I'll fix it tonight. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Dick Pollard
The review we've got at GA may give you some idea why I'm not too bothered about pursuing these accolades! Not quite sure where to start in the face of such an onslaught: or whether it's worth the bother. Johnlp (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's always intimidating when faced with so many issues, but Noble Story does make some good points. It's a thorough review and mostly it's a matter of copy editing and doubling up references in the right place. The most important bit might be the final comment about the article not being broad enough, but if we explain the problem that the sources just don't seem to cover much beyond the cricket you never know. I'll do some copy editing when I get the chance. Nev1 (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing the work. I'll try to take a look tomorrow evening. But having thought I was going to be relatively relaxed IRL from mid-month, I've suddenly got even busier. Johnlp (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

4 digit numbers on Noel Park
The four digit numbers are deliberately not comma-separated – this article was written in a conscious experiment of complying with (AFAIK) every part of the MOS, and the Great God MOSNUM specifies comma-separation for numbers of five or more digits. I don't agree with it either. (I did actually sneak a comma-separated 4-digit number into the bdy text, but that's because it's adjacent to a 5-digit number, and having one separated & not the other just looked too weird.) My reverting you wasn't intended to be any kind of biteyness! –  iride scent  22:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Never mind, I didn't take it as bitey. I resigned to the fact that I'll never know the ins and out of the sprawling entity that is MOS a long time ago ;-) Nev1 (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No more do I; this article was done the way it was as an exercise, prompted by this little spat in which my opinion of the MOS is (I think) made fairly clear. I wanted to see how hard it was to take it as gospel. (It's actually not as hard as you think, but very time consuming.) –  iride scent  23:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Crewe Hall money conversions
Thanks for adding these, that looks like a more reliable source than the one I tried a while back. It's a pity the template is set up to match the cite web format, but we can't have everything! Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 14:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's something I nicked from Malleus. The citation is a separate template (ie: ) and is just used for ease; if you want the reference format to match the rest of the article, you'll have to write it out by hand I'm afraid. Nev1 (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Overlinking
I get the principle, but why remove all links to England in terms of his nationality? Surely the first mention should be wikilinked...? --Dweller (talk) 12:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I assume the thinking is that most people using the English wikipedia will know what being English is. If not, they can use the search box. The article is already heavily linked (unsurprisingly since cricket articles have to link every technical term) and so losing one to what is a relatively common term does, IMHO, no harm. Adil Rashid's nationality might be a more prominent issue than in other articles (for example, Mike Atherton's), and there is some inconsistency, for example I just experimented with the Brendan Nash article, and where it says Jamaican-Australian, it delinked Australian but not Jamaican, leaving it looking a little odd. If you think it's worth re-adding a link to English (although it was actually piped to England rather than English people), then go ahead, there are probably a dozen conflicting wikipolicies that could apply here and it's best to use common sense. Nev1 (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * lol! --Dweller (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Nico Ditch
I have seen the GENUKI site link directly to co-ordinates on the old-maps.co.uk site. I will have a play around and try to get it to work, I don't think it will be too difficult. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I've done it, try it now. Unfortunately I don't know how to get it to force a particular year, but the co-ordinates are spot on for the later maps. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Dukinfield
Hi

Thanks for finding that ref - I spent about two hours searching the net but realised I was prob going to need to find a book or some similar ref. I didn't want to lose that as there aren't that many notable people from Dukinfield lol

Cheers--Chaosdruid (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a problem, I'd like to help more with the Dukinfield page, but the books I used for Ashton-under-Lyne are AWOL. With sportsmen, it might be worth going to individual wikipprojects and asking for guidance. Cricinfo.com has comprehensive statistics on notable cricketers, but I think football and rugby players are harder to find references for. Nev1 (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)