User talk:Nev1/Archives/March–April 2009

Eastwood, Nottinghamshire
Thank you for taking the time to review the article, for making constructive comments, and for your minor edits.

This is my first FA nomination; I hope I wasn't pre-emptive in nominating the article. I did spend a lot of time reviewing FA criteria, and also studied other FA cities and towns in an attempt to make the article as comprehensive as possible.

I'm sorry you feel that the sentence structure is poor, and would appreciate it if you could give me guidance on this - perhaps if you could improve one or two sentences, or a paragraph, it would point me in the right direction and give me ideas.

I think I understand your comment about the list-y notable people, and too short a lead, and will address those issues.

Once again, thanks for your input.

--  Chzz  ►  00:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Re. reply,

Thanks, v v constructive. I will use the ideas to improve it.

--  Chzz  ►  00:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Manchester - Liverpool Metropole area
Hi, You recently briefly contributed in a side discussion regarding an alleged dispute about List of metropolitan areas in Europe by population. I would be grateful if you could help improve this article by engaging with the initial discussion. Ghaag (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your contribution in the mediation about this topic. This process might be a bit OTT for such a random fact but I think this  article needs tidying up one way or another. Again thank you.
 * Ghaag (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Going to mediation may be overkill, but if people weren't bold, sometimes things just wouldn't get done. My concern isn't about the Manchester/Liverpool issue any more, but the entire article; world-gazetteer.com just doesn't feel like a reliable source. It might be worth asking on the reliable sources noticeboard for other opinions on it. If it's discredited, the way I see it, we're left with two options:
 * Delete the article: feels like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but is there any need for the article as there is Largest urban areas of the European Union, and can we adequately define what a metropolitan area is? Are reliable sources available? Is the article really practical?
 * Gut the article and start again: this would be much more difficult, and would involve carefully defining what a "metropolitan area" is and then finding reliable sources for population figures.
 * It should be interesting to see the result of the mediation, and the direction the article takes. Nev1 (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)
The February 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) 23:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the prposed deletion of all cape welding, i apprciate your support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobbieG2448 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfinished business
Sale, Greater Manchester. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right, I'd just noticed a fresh wave of edits. I've been away from the article long enough know I think. Nev1 (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Castles in Cheshire
I happened to notice your comment about this elsewhere and I think that is a good idea which I would support. And it would be much better that the GM list because we could get a lot more than one image!!!!! Cheers. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm working in my sandbox at the moment, just trying to get some info together (the stuff you found for the Scheduled Monuments should help, and I've begun cannibalising it). It's still in the earliest stage though and I won't be moving it into the mainspace until it's pretty much finished and has a lead so that it can go for DYK. It should be a manageable list as the north isn't well know for having many castles, although Cheshire has more than 9! In the long run, I'd like to make it another Featured List (there, I've said it out loud). In GM's defence, most of it's castles are below ground! Nev1 (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Good start, but you're working too hard! Leasowe is not in Cheshire (now), Peckforton is a 19th-century country house in the style of a castle and Mow Cop is a folly. I can find more info about Runcorn Castle which was built at Runcorn Gap by Ethelfleda to defend the Mersey from Viking invasion in 915.  It was a timber structure and remains of foundations were found in the 1860s when workmen were building the southern abutment of Runcorn Railway Bridge.  Perhaps I should write a stub with references, but there's so much to do and we are approaching a "big" family birthday and two holidays in March. Retirement is great! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I just copy and pasted the list from list of castles in England, which was only recently reorganised into administrative counties (at some point, there should be scope for "castles in Merseyside"). Some dates from Runcorn Castle would be great if possible, from pastscape it looks like there was a medieval castle on top of Ethelfleda's burh; some measurements would be good if at all possible and I think anything else could probably go in its own article. Nev1 (talk) 09:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No medieval castle - that was at Halton a couple of miles to the east. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Pastscape's not infalible, but it does say "Possible site of Runcorn Castle thought to be on site of earlier Anglo-Saxon borough". But the Anglo-Saxon burh isn't a castle, and it would be unusual to have two contemporaneous castles so close together so I'll remove it from the list. Warwick Castle and Kenilworth Castle were only 5 miles apart, but they were built by rival lords, so if there were two castles in Runcorn I'd expect something similar. If Runcorn Castle refers to the burh, it probably still deserves its own article, depending on how much information can be found. Nev1 (talk) 11:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right, it was a burh, although locals referred to it as Runcorn Castle and it stood on a promontory called Castle Rock, which disappeared with the building of the bridge. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

List of National Monuments of the United States
You commented on the previous FLC for this article, and I've gotten a peer review for it, so I hope more of your issues have been resolved. I have gone ahead and listed it back on FLC here, and I would appreciate any further comments. Thanks, Reywas92 Talk  21:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I had noticed it had been renominated and was planning to take another look ;-) I'll do so when I have some free time. Nev1 (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The Hamsters and "Round the Horne"
I suggest you look at the citation that is being used as reference in the Round the Horne article. It is disingenuous for you to claim it is "referenced for the "Hamsters" when there is not a single solitary mention of them in this citation. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 04:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Do not use quotation marks unless quoting, you are deliberately misrepresenting what I said. I have made it clear that it was my opinion that the reference was acceptable – although not ideal – there is nothing disingenuous about that. Nev1 (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

XX Valeria Victrix
Thanks for pointing out the discrepancy. Actually, it's not the caption which is wrong, but the map, which has switched XX Valeria and II Augusta. (I take it you mean II Augusta, not II Adiutrix as you stated in your message?) Regards EraNavigator (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll so advise the mapmaker. Thanks EraNavigator (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

SMs yet again
Thanks for your support on Talk:Scheduled Monuments in Cheshire (1066–1539). I really don't see the point of this sort of meddling; have people nothing better to do? The edit has removed the meat from the lead. Much of the remaining material was added to make it long enough for a DYK; this one is proving to be more trouble than it's worth. I shall be away for much of the rest of this month, leaving you rather isolated as the only active Cheshire editor left. Good luck and keep up the good work! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well done; s/he's reverted it him/herself. Perhaps s/he will keep his/her meddling to New Zealand articles. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) Well, Snori was doing what he thought was best, although obviously I disagree. He's reverted now, and hopefully because he agrees rather than feels that we're badgering him. I'll have to expand my watchlist to cover more Cheshire-related articles as there will be fewer people checking up on them. In the mean time, I'll keep expanding the list of castles. Have fun away from wikipedia! Nev1 (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

SSEM
I'm not around much for next couple of days but will give it some attention once caught up and back properly

cheers--Chaosdruid (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

invitation
You're invited to sign up as a founding member, at WikiProject Council/Proposals ! :) doncram (talk) 08:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Historic Sites is opened up. I took the liberty of assuming your support for the wikiproject meant you wanted to join as a member, and I copied your signature to the Members list on the main page.  Please visit and add to, or remove, your listing there.  It would be great to hear about what you're interested in the Wikiproject becoming, in your member comment and/or at the Talk page, shortcut wt:HSITES.  Thanks for your support! doncram (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Winterley and Haslington
The editor is now making untrue statements about me on Talk:Haslington. Can you look into this, please? DDStretch   (talk)  18:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have informed him that if he continues acting in the same manner, he will be blocked. Hopefully we can return to the real issue of providing a reliable source without Ian-metz feeling the need to slander people. Nev1 (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Aha, as I suspected (and denied by DDStretch by accusing me of "insinuations") you two ARE working in cahoots. A little more honesty would be a good thing!


 * For the record, I am still waiting for DDStretch to point me towards a definitive map of Winterley to support his assertions that I cannot live there, but instead it seems he wants me to put my personal information on the internet as proof, a very, very bad idea. He wants to have his cake and eat it as well - he claims to have the proof, yet wants me to provide it; a very strange way of going about things!


 * So, instead of asking me to prove where I live, if Mr Stretch will just publish or point me to his map I shall be able to say "you were right, I don't live in Winterly" or "you are wrong, I do live in Winterly", it really is that simple.


 * And it will avoid me having to post my personal details on the internet, which DDStretch should not ask me to do, I'm sure there must be a wikirule about that somewhere!


 * --Ian-metz (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Cahoots... right. Anyway, no one has asked you to put your personal information online, so don't twist other people's words. And you're right, it would be a bad idea. Nev1 (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Look this is getting tedious and silly. Nowhere have I asked you to post your personal information on the internet or on wikipedia. All you have to do is seek out and find the information from the relevant local authorities that back up your claims: (a) there is at least one part of Crewe and Nantwich (in which you admit you are) that, nevertheless, pays council tax to Congleton (which you say you do). A bit of thought will tell anyone that there are other means of verifying what you are claiming to the satisfaction of wikipedia. As always, the burden of proof is on you, given the reliable sources I have provided. Try not to interpret everything I write as bad, as it merely makes you appear biased and your claims not worthy of further consideration, and try not to se conspiracies everywhere.  DDStretch    (talk)  15:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right, I am getting sick of this too, trying to work out how I can supply information for you to test against your "reliable sources" when you won't reveal what those reliable sources are!


 * To move on, PLEASE tell me how I can prove to your satisfaction that I live in Winterley when you apparently have access to information that you are unwilling to share?


 * Or, please tell me what information I can supply that wil prove to your satisfaction that I live in Winterley without compromising my personal data?


 * There you are, two specific questions, the answer to either should be capable of resolving this issue. Thank you.  --Ian-metz (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no need to be so dramatic, no one's asking you to post your personal information on wikipedia, we're just saying there must be another reliable source out there to support your claim if it's true. How about we send either Congleton or Crewe and Nantwich council (or perhaps both) an e-mail asking them where Winterley is? Would this satisfy everyone one way or the other? Nev1 (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Earlier today I did this, mainly because there seemed no indication that Ian-Metz was going to do it. I have posted Crewe and Nantwich council, the clerk of Haslington parish council, the clerk of Sandbach parish council, and Congleton Borough. Still waiting for responses. Oh, and if Ian-Metz is going to use titles in his messages, he may as well use the correct one for me, though I hardly ever choose to use it. It isn't Mr, it is Dr.  DDStretch    (talk)  17:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Before reading your posts above I did indeed email Crewe and Nantwich Council and got the following reply, which I copy and paste here: "According to our records that we use here in the Planning Department the boundary for Crewe and Nantwich actually includes the properties 1-5 Hollyfields. Numbers 6-11 are actually still in Winterley but are in the Congleton Borough." Now, whether I live in Hollyfields or not, it makes my point.  I have informed DDStretch about it but he has chosen to ignore it.  Completely.  I wonder why?  (Remember, DDStretch, you have already agreed on Wikipedia that Winterley has no defined boundaries, so please bear that in mind when you try to rubbish Crewe and Nantwich's definition of what Winterley is, as I feel sure you will.)   --Ian-metz (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Greater Manchester population table
You reverted the population table which I created for the Greater Manchester page. By my screen resolution at 1024x768 it doesn't over run into the lower sections - i.e. the education section. Is there an official screen resolution for Wikipedia? The two images on the left with text take longer room than the table. I'd very much I'd like that table replaced. 86.3.175.106 (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Added it back. 86.3.175.106 (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The old one is more line with the guideines.  The new one causes text to run between the table (on the left) and the images (on the right), which is a style no-no, and runs on into the next section.  There isn't a 'standard resolution'.  Mr Stephen (talk) 00:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point Mr Stephen. There's no standard resolution, but it did look bad on my screen. But sandwiching text between an image and a table (or two tables, or two images for that matter) is definitely not allowed, as such I will revert to the first version of the table. Thanks for your edits though 86.3.175.106. Nev1 (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Which "guideline" states this is not allowed? 86.3.175.106 (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I was sure it was in wikipedia's manual of style, but after a quick look I can't find it (it's constantly changing, so who knows where it is). I'll try to find it. Nev1 (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason I prefer the long population table is that it easier to edit and add to it. I wouldn't take much the add further census year population figures. There could also a third column added for +/- population changes. I was trying do a UK version of the the USA state and city population tables, for example New York - Demographics. Rather than just dump what I see is fine table, it could go where the graph image and terraced houses images are, they could be moved elsewhere. But I'll leave that up to you. 86.3.175.106 (talk) 01:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd noticed a similar style of table on US pages, and don't really like it there either because it often overlaps sections. What I think is much better (and I'll probably implement on the Greater Manchester page) is the type of table used on Sale, Greater Manchester. It's easy to edit and has the benefit of being horizontal. Nev1 (talk) 01:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't like the horizontal table, it is too wide and the right side is missed if printed. It may best to leave to current table, we can worry with the 2011 census figures come along. I have edited the table with a bit of colour. I'm sure that will be ok. 86.3.175.106 (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It does look better in colour. Nev1 (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Cheshire Wiki Project
Hello Nev1. Thank-you for the offer of joining the Cheshire Wikiproject. I'll be pleased to do so. However, at the moment I don't contribute a great deal to the project (I read much more than I write), but I'll be happy to do what I can. Let me know if there's any particular task you would like me to look at. Thanks. The Roman Candle (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks again! I tend to be a bit of a copy editor, as you may have noticed. However, I have an interest in railways, so I'll keep a look out for Cheshire and Staffordshire railway articles. Incidentally, I picked up on the Winterley issue. Have a look at what I've done, but if it goes against policy let me know and I'll put it right, or reverse it. The Roman Candle (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What?
Why the revert? I was only asking a question... GARDEN 23:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ack, spoke too soon, apologies :) GARDEN  23:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, heh. I know how weird WT:RFA can be though...  GARDEN  23:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Old Trafford five star
I can find sources for OT itself being a five star stadium, but I can't find one that states that both OT and Wembley are five star. This, however, is probably because Wembley was only promoted to "Elite" status a few weeks ago, and most sources for OT being a five star stadium are a couple of years old. – PeeJay 00:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Or because Wembley opened in 2007 and the five-star ranking was abolished in 2006 (the scale now goes 1, 2, 3, elite with no 4 or 5)… –  iride scent 02:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Haslington (Yet again!)
I noticed that on one of your recent edits of the Haslington article you removed the Wikilink for England. No big deal, but I thought that I had seen somewhere (possibly the archives of the UK Geography WikiProject, which I can't find rght now) that, after an extensive debate in the past, it had been decided that England wasn't important enough to exist without the link. Not being picky, but just wondered for future use. Skinsmoke (talk) 05:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's the relevant section from the MoS. I think it would be stretching credibility beyond its breaking point to suggest that England is not a major geographic feature or location likely to be familiar to the overwhelming majority of English speakers. For the benefit of the few for whom it remains a mystery there is always the search box. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * A quik search of the UKGEO archives doesn't seem to throw up anything on the linking of England. And I agree with exactly what Malleus said. Nev1 (talk) 13:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

re: Question on protection
Let's wait and see what happens, if the page is stable over let's say the next 24 hours, sure I will unprotect. Cirt (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your rationale makes sense - reevaluate in one day? Cirt (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, agreed. Cirt (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Smithfield
Thanks for your copyediting help on Smithfield, London! --DarTar (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not much, but I helped where I could. It's an interesting article, and hopefully can make it at FAC. Nev1 (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Bruce Castle
Thanks for prodding me into finishing the expansion of Bruce Castle, which has just passed GA and is now subject of what I suspect will be a rather peculiar peer review, given the "known unknowns" in the history… – iride scent  17:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Another GA for WP:LONDON, I'll have to be careful with what I recommend in future otherwise you might catch up with WP:GM! When you've reached the limits of available information, is that enough for FA? I think it can be, but the FAC for Buckton Castle looks to be heading for a no consensus close. It occurs to me that it might be worth e-mailing the local archaeological group to see if there are any reports on Bruce Castle that haven't been used. Maybe the Museum of London Archaeology will have something. Nev1 (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I considered it, but I decided that they almost certainly won't have anything; as the museum housed in the building says they're unclear about the building's origins, it's almost certainly going to be the case. (Even the usually authoritative Pevsner is uncertain as to the century of construction.) –  iride scent 18:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

GAN page revert
I don't understand. Why did you revert the user's edit? They are removing their nomination due to not being available until July. Have a good day! CarpetCrawler (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * My apologies, the revert was a mistake. Grimhelm's edit was just above a vandalism edit to the Hale Barns article on my watchlist, and unfortunately I reverted the wrong one. As soon as I realised my mistake, I undid it. Once again, my apologies, and happy editing. Nev1 (talk) 23:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, it happens to all of us! :) Have a great day! CarpetCrawler (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Article geography
Hi again,

Do you know of a good source to write geography sections of articles? This could do with some expansion, don't you think? Thanks for any help.  Majorly  talk  15:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry I've taken so long to reply, but I've been inactive for the past week. I don't find geography sections particularly easy to write about settlements because sometimes there's not much to say. What I usually do is mention what the bedrock is, the local drift geology, and whether there are deposits of clay, coal, or soil etc. The Arrowsmith might cover this, if it does it will be early on in the book when it talks about prehistoric Stockport. At this point, it would be worth mentioning if there were any coal mines and roughly where they were (eg: north/south. I doubt there will be though, as coal mines were mainly located in the west of the county near Wigan). The local rivers should be mentioned as you have (doesn't need a source in my opinion), and at this point it may be worth mentioning if there were any mills in the area (they should be concentrated around the local water courses) although this is completely up to your discretion. Again, this will be covered by a local history book.
 * A compass table with the neighbouring settlements/areas is always useful and doesn't need a source; a good example (for both the code and how it will look) is Shaw and Crompton. It's worth adding a sentence on the built environment of the town, ie: what type of buildings can be found and when they date from. Once again, a local history book will be useful here. Because you've chosen the ward boundaries to define the settlement, it will be possible to say what proportion of the town is greenspace, housing, roads, etc (eg: ).
 * Finally, it seems to be pretty standard to give an idea of what the climate of a town is like. This isn't easy to do, as most places don't have their own weather station, but it's safe to say that Cheadle Hulme's weather will be pretty much the same as the rest of Greater Manchester, and since the closest weather station at is Ringway, it's best to say something like:


 * Cheadle Hulme's climate is generally temperate, like the rest of Greater Manchester. The mean highest and lowest temperatures are slightly above the national average (12.1 °C and 5.1 °C), while the annual rainfall and average hours of sunshine are respectively above and below the national average (806.6 mm and 1457.4 hours).


 * I'm afraid the first stuff I recommended will be more difficult as it requires a good local history book, but stuff like stats on land use should be pretty easy to generate. Good luck with the article, it's progressing well and I'll try to look over it once I get the chance. Nev1 (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Follow up: Trafford council have "ward profiles" on their website which give some stats and a brief description of the area, it might be worth looking at the Stockport council website to see if they publish ward profiles. Nev1 (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This is extremely useful, thanks a lot.  Majorly  talk  23:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)
The March 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) 03:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Deva Victrix
Hi, You asked me about the locations of roman legions in the map File:Roman Roads in Britannia.svg. I don't know anything about that, I only made some cosmetical changes to the map. However, I can change the locations of the legions for you, but you didn't seem very certain about the new locations etc. so I'd suggest that you discuss this over at the talk page of the image, and then post a link to the talk place here: Requests for comment. If no one replies, you could post the issue in here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_Greece_and_Rome Richardprins (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi mate, I swapped the legions. Please take another look at the map to be sure that I did it correctly. Richardprins (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Stalybridge
Hi Nev. Don't you think you've gone a bit over the top removing the whole list of Notable people on the grounds that there are no citations for any of them. Practically every town article on Wikipedia has a similar list, and the overwhelming majority lack citations. You've even removed entries where, when you check the Wikipedia article on them, it starts with Born in Stalybridge. Perhaps it would have been more appropriate to have added the template, or better still have noted the whole section with template:unreferencedsection. Skinsmoke (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Feel free to add sources, but in short, no I don't think it's over the top. Per WP:V and unsourced information should be removed. This policy should not of course be applied inflexibly or a great deal of wikipedia's articles would be stubs. However, the article will be undergoing some changes in the near future, with references added, and this will include reinstating the notable people section. As the info was unsourced, there's no harm in removing it, albeit temporarily. My own preference is to remove such sections and concentrate them in lists such as List of people from Stockport, however since there is no such list for Tameside the info should remain in the article. Nev1 (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Neither do I think it's OTT. In fact I wish these unsourced lists were removed from more articles. Their presence, and the all too often associated trivia section, aka cultural references, was largely why I decided to abandon all geographical articles to their inevitable fate. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Cultural references and notable people sections are usually unreferenced so in theory most of them could be removed, but it's not worth the hassle. It's only really worth the effort (and occasionally clashes with other editors) when the article is of a good standard, or is going to be improved. And as long as there's someone watching the article, it shouldn't degrade. I find geographical articles very demanding, and think they're some of the most difficult to write. You have to be one part historian, one part social commentator, a bit of a statistician/number cruncher, and you need access to a wide range of sources. Even something like a transport section can be difficult unless you know where to look for information on trains, buses, roads, and who runs local transport. It's much easier to write a biography or an article on a single historical event for which there may only be a few sources, and you don't have to change your mindset for each section. Nev1 (talk) 12:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Your recent change to the origins of the name of Stalybridge is not quite correct. As I understand it, the name of the village was not originally Stayley. Stayley was the civil parish from part of which Stalybridge Municipal Borough was carved (parts of Ashton under Lyne and Dukinfield civil parishes were also incorporated into the "new" borough in 1857). Stayley remained as a separate entity. becoming Stayley Urban Sanitary District in 1875. In 1881 the urban sanitary district appears to have been abolished, and it is not clear what replaced it. The civil parish then lost a further part, Micklehurst, to Mossley Municipal Borough in 1885. Finally, in 1894, the civil parish was abolished and divided between Mossley and Stalybridge. Effectively Stayley finished life covering what is now Copley, Brushes, Millbrook and Carrbrook. The clearest explanation I have found is at A Vision of Britain Through Time : Stayley Civil Parish though Youngs may shed more light on things (I don't have access to a copy). Skinsmoke (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll check over the sources again, but I'm pretty sure I've got the facts right: the settlement was called Stayley long before the civil parish was formed. The manor of Stayley – which contained the settlement – was formed in the Norman period. Admittedly, Stalybridge has a fairly complicated history. I'm curious what you you think the settlement was called before the 18th century (ie: before the bridge); I can't remember when civil parishes were introduced, but I thought it was the 19th century. The name does after all mean "the bridge at Stayley". Nev1 (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even sure there was a settlement before the 18th century. There was certainly a hall, but whether anything else existed I don't know. You are right that civil parishes were created in the 19th century - in 1866 to be precise. Up until then Stayley was a township in the ancient parish of Mottram. In 1866 the ancient parishes (or ecclesiastical parishes, or simply parishes) were abolished and replaced with a civil form of government. In the southern counties of England, this simply meant, on the whole, that the ancient parish was replaced by a corresponding civil parish. In the northern counties however, where the ancient parishes were much larger, they tended to be split into smaller units, based on their component townships. It appears that there was also a township of Stalybridge St Paul in the ancient parish of Mottram, and that this may have become a civil parish in 1866. It will need checking out, but I would hazard a guess that Stalybridge St Paul was that part of Stayley township incorporated into the municipal borough in 1857, along with part of Dukinfield township from Stockport ancient parish and part of Ashton under Lyne ancient parish. Ashton under Lyne was unusual as it appears not to have been subdivided until 1894 (though it lost the part in Stalybridge Municipal Borough in 1889 when the borough was placed wholly within Cheshire). According to John Bartholomew's Gazetteer of the British Isles, published in 1887, "the town is entirely modern, dating from the year 1776" (A Vision of Britain Through Time : A Vision of Stalybridge) It also states that the municipal boundaries were extended in 1881, which may well explain what happened to Stayley Urban Sanitary District in that year. It therefore looks likely that between 1881 and 1889 the Municipal Borough of Stalybridge contained the whole of the civil parish of Stalybridge St Paul, along with parts of the civil parishes of Ashton under Lyne, Dukinfield and Stayley. In any case, in amongst all this confusion the point I was trying to make was that Stayley and Stalybridge are not the same place and that, certainly as the 19th century progressed, they were seen as two very distinct communities. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I've removed the claim that Stalybridge and Stayley are one and the same from the lead, and will do so from the main body of the article. Thanks for pointing out my mistake, fortunately I didn't waste too much time. 1776 is very specific, referring to the first mill built in Stalybridge. Stayley and Stalybridge are clearly linked, the question is how much information on Stayley should be included in the Stalybridge article (and making it clear that Stayley and Stalybridge are not the same will also be important). Nev1 (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

To complicate matters even more, Stalybridge subsequently absorbed Stayley. I doubt that most people who now live in what was Stayley think of themselves as living in anything but Stalybridge. Though Millbrook and Carrbrook have distinct identities, Copley and Brushes are really just considered to be estates within Stalybridge. I don't think it unreasonable to include information on Stayley within the Stalybridge article given that the Municipal Borough of Stalybridge included the remains of Stayley from 1894 onwards. The two only really had separate identities for about 100 years at most, and certainly Stalybridge derives its name from Stayley (I wonder if anyone has ever found out why the spelling changed when the "new town" was established). Skinsmoke (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Temporary injunction and your use of my monobook script
Hi Nev1,

I am pleased to see that you have used my monobook script in the past; I hope you've found it useful.

I have to let you know on your talk page that ArbCom has announced a temporary injunction against the "mass delinking of dates". You can still delink dates on an occasional basis; however, you may wish to be cautious and use the script only for its non-date functions until the issue is resolved by an RFC poll. I oppose autoformatting and hope to see an end to its nonsense. You may wish to express your view on autoformatting and date linking in the RFC at: Date_formatting_and_linking_poll.

Regards Lightmouse (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up, I don't think I use the script too much, but I'll try to limit my use just in case. Good luck with ArbCom, I don't think dates should be linked either as it adds nothing to the article so good luck (I may drop in to look at the discussion at some point). Nev1 (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The poll is almost over. If want to vote, you need to do it now. Lightmouse (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sale
I think we're very close to the point of diminishing returns with this article now, and it's probably about as ready for FAC as it'll ever be. What do you think? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you're right, it's undergone a lot of fine tuning and honing. Hopefully this time the white whale won't get away ;-) Would you prefer to do the honours or should I? Nev1 (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You've done a lot more on the article than I have, so you go for it. It would be nice to finally be able to drive a stake through this one's heart, so to speak. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's been nominated, fingers crossed it gets more attention than last time around. Nev1 (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's already had more attention than last time around. Here's hoping. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Featured Topic?
It occurs to me that we've got quite a few Trafford-related FA/GAs, perhaps even enough for a try at Featured Topic. I was thinking of something along the lines of major settlements in Trafford, but Partington isn't up to that yet. What do you think? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I talked to Jza about potential GM-related featured topics a while ago, and Trafford looked like the best one. Partington, as you say, is the only town not at GA or better, but I think before an attempt to go for FT the articles need a spring clean. For starters, I think I should have a go at adding a bit more to the Urmston article and Warburton and Hale Barns might have some formatting issues or require updating (ie: the older GAs). There's no need to limit the topic to towns as we've got a clutch of GAs on small areas, and even have Old Trafford as a FA (although football articles seem to decline rapidly after reaching GA/FA). Hopefully the articles that are already GA/FA shouldn't take too much work, and I'm sure there are sources for Partington out there somewhere. I even drafted the box below to get an idea of what needs to be done. Nev1 (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep this under your hat, but I'm rather surprised that Old Trafford is an FA. The prose is very far from being of the "professional quality" demanded today. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, good luck with getting this to GA/FA… –  iride scent   20:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I suddenly wish Lancashire had decided to move grounds *runs off and hides from such a disgraceful article* Nev1 (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Stretford Grammar School
Would you mind taking a look at Stretford Grammar School's talk page? I've moved a recently added section into it from the main article, but I'm concerned that it may be a libel against the former headmaster. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oddly enough, only recently I had to protect the articles on Bury Grammar School and The Blue Coat School, Oldham, for excessive vandalism. Protecting the Stretford Grammar School page is of course unnecessary as only one IP is making the claims, so if the worse comes to the worse they'll get blocked. I have left a firm warning on their talk page explaining the possible consequences and their action and warning them that if they do it again they will be blocked. Since it's probably a pupil being silly, it should be enough to put an end to the matter. Nev1 (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I agree that there's no need for protection, I was just concerned about what looked to me like some pretty serious charges being laid against the headmaster and Trafford Council. I'm uncertain whether that material ought even to be allowed to remain on the talk page; my gut-feeling is that it should be deleted. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, let's get rid of it then. Do you mean deleted by an admin or just removed? Nev1 (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I mean deleted by an admin, so that it's no longer in the article/talk page history. I'd do it myself, but, well, you know ... :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Done, the accusations have now been removed from both article and talk page, although there is now no discussion on the talk page (I can restore the discussion between you and me without the IP's original material if you think it worthwhile, but I thought as only my name would be visible to non admins in the page history it might look a bit odd if I posted your comments). Nev1 (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Gropecunt Lane
Me and Malleus have been fiddling with this. See what you think. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * heh, it is an interesting article and if it ever was TFA it'd probably be the most vandalised article ever to appear :) There are still a few instances where things are slightly disjointed - I've tried hard to bring all the sources together for a continuous read though.  Selous St is mentioned to demonstrate that the process of PC renaming still goes on.  I can check out my sources again tomorrow to look for a trend in the demise of (tolerated) prostitution.  I'm a little wary of moving away from the main focus of the article though - I think that's been the most difficult part of this tonight.  Interestingly, turpis vicus turns up some scholarly google results but I ain't paying any more money to see what's written! Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a plan, at the moment the article gives only one reason why the name may have disappeared, so if we can find a couple of lines to also mention the changes in prostitution that might also help fill it out. I'm wondering if the article shouldn't bypass GAN and go straight to FAC?  It certainly reads very well thanks to Malleus's edits. Parrot of Doom (talk) 06:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The 'unusually' is a reference to the fact that the prostitution in London had been shoe-horned into Southwark and that Gropecunt, Bordhawelane (Bordello), and Puppykirty (poke skirt) appeared all in the same small area - an isolated island of prostitution if you like. I'll search through the Indecent Exposure book to see if I can find a 'last recorded use/mention' of the name.  I only got the book yesterday so haven't had a chance to read through it properly but it looks as though there is a wealth of information on the topic.  Who knows, it may even have sections on towns and cities in GM.


 * If you like I could send you jpg copies of the Holt/Baker report in the book - it contains hand-drawn maps of several Gropecunts and many pages more information than I have. I have been in touch with Nigel Baker though so I'm keen not to over-use his material. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Etymology of "Sale"
How reliable are the sources that "Sale" (and "Salford", come to that) derive from "seale" (willow)? With no prior knowledge of the area, just a glance at the map seems to suggest that both derive from "sceald" (OE "shallow") and derive from the river fording points. – iride  scent   15:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The -ford element of Salford does refer to a crossing over the River Irwell. The reference for the Sal element of Salford is the University of Nottingham (currently a dead link unfortunately), and the the derivation of Sale is given in Nevell's Archaeology of Trafford published by the University of Manchester, so in theory both sources should be of the highest standard. That said, "sceald" is a derivation I've not come across, but sounds plausible especially given the locations of both settlements (although "seale" is a bit closer to Sale). Nev1 (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If the sources say "willow", that's good enough – "Verifiability, not truth" and all that. Just seemed more plausible to me – "the place with the willow trees" describes about 95% of England, and presumably "Trafford" itself is a corruption of "Stretford" ("road-ford") or "Treoford" ("ford at the trees"). –  iride scent  15:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Spot on about Trafford. Verifiability over truth never used to bother me, but sometimes I see some facts that are shouting out for another source that just doesn't exist. For example I recently saw that a source from 1962 that says Eccles was founded by Christian refugees from Roman Manchester in the 4th century. However new work has revealed that the civilian settlement at Manchester had fallen out of use by then. Unfortunately no one's got round to writing down what the implication of this for Eccles. Nev1 (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

What is generally looked upon as the most authoritative source for the etymology of Sale is found in volume 2 of Dodgson's series concerning the place names of Cheshire (reference given below). It confirms that the name is understood to be "At the willow", though there may be some variation in spelling of the Old English. The most relevant passage is this:

'At the willow', v. Salh (dat.sg. sale). (page 4 of Dodgson's book)

"'v'. Salh (dat.sg.sale)" means "see [Old English word] Salh (the dative singular of which is sale)" The material is given on page 4 of Dodgson's 1970b book. , and the explanation of the abbreviations is given in his first volume: series of pages from xxiii to xlii. My own preference would be always to go back and use Dodgson's books as definitive sources, particularly in cases of disagreement when no other backup for definitions is found in other, more recent and more reliable sources. DDStretch   (talk)  18:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, I remember you saying that on the talk page, I could use that as the reference in the article as well as the Nevell book if you think it's worthwhile? Nev1 (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, does Dodgson cover the derivation of Stalybridge and Dukinfield (both historically in Cheshire, in the Macclesfield hundred I think)? The books I have only cover the subject briefly and both are articles that could be developed to GA standard. Nev1 (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * From the Dodgson 1970a book, above (since they were both in Macclesfield Hundred):

Dukinfield (page 276 of Dodgson's 1970a book): " 'Ducks' open land', v. duce (gen.pl. ducema), feld." ("ducks" here means the bird'') There are quite a few historical variations in the name and spelling given.

Stalybridge (more complicated) (pages 316–317 of Dodgson's 1970a book): Derives from the old village of Stayley: " 'Wood where staves are got', v. staef, leah, cf. Staveley Db 301." ... "Since the nineteenth century, the township has taken its name from the hamlet of Stalybridge." ... "[Stalybridge:] 'the bridge at Stayley', v. brycg, cf. Stayley supra." ... "Stalybridge is the name of a hamlet in La, v, La 29, which extended to the Ch bank of R. Tame in the eighteenth century, and has since superceded Stayley as the township-name." (top of page 317). The abbreviations are as given above with Db=Place name of Derbyshire book(s), La=Lancashire and Place names of Lancashire book(s), Ch=Cheshire. Remember that the county boundaries in this area of Cheshire changed throughout the nineteenth century as Stockport grew into Lancashire and, possibly, parts of Derbyshire. So where Stalybridge is changed county at lewast once up to 1974. This is backed up by the other authoritative source concerning boundaries:. On page 35 of this, it confirms that the situation round Stalybridge was quite complex, with various administrative bodies being split between Cheshire, Lancashire, and even the West Riding of Yorkshire. Youngs states that Stayley only completely entered Cheshire in 1889, with earlier complications involving Stalybridge municipal borough and Mossley municipal borough, which were also said to be split between Cheshire and other counties nearby. DDStretch   (talk)  19:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, it's a great help. Writing the governance section for Stalybridge will be interesting! I didn't expect Dukinfield to simply mean "ducks' open land" (is that Old English?) Nev1 (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. I must admit, it stumped me for a while, thinking it was too obvious, and that the way Dodgson had written it, it could have been some important landowner who had the name "Ducks". So, I had to go to an Old English-Modern English doctionary to confirm that "duce/ducema" meant "duck" (as in the quacking thing) in Old English.  DDStretch    (talk)  23:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Topics
Only today have I discovered the existence of Good Topics (I discover something new most days on Wikipedia) and I just wondered if we have a possible candidate for a Cheshire GT. The subject would be Runcorn with the articles Halton Castle, Norton Priory  and List of listed buildings in Runcorn. The link between the articles would of course be their listing, with Halton Castle and Norton Priory being the only Grade I listed buildings in the town. What do you think? No rush for a reply - I shall be away from WP until Sunday–Monday. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a very good idea, and the current four you've highlight is a very good start, it would probably pass at this stage (although I've never been involved with either a Good or Featured Topic). There's also scope for expansion as the Bridgewater Canal could be included, and the port of Runcorn is in a decent shape and it might be worth thinking about taking it to GAN, so the two would fit in nicely. Nev1 (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've made a nomination as a GTC under the title Listed buildings in Runcorn. To try to widen the scope would I suspect lead to accusations of "cherry-picking".  It's just an experiment, so let's see how it goes. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Useful site
I wish I'd come across this earlier - and I'm fairly annoyed I forgot about Hulme Hall being a listed building... ah well, I'll see if there's anything else that's relevant to add from there.  Majorly  talk  19:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've seen Hulme Hall and it's a stunning building on the outside, although it's 20th century on the inside. It's probably notable for an article in its own right. I would have completely missed it too if I hadn't been browsing the Stockport.gov site for more info on their conservation areas. Nev1 (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Eccles, Greater Manchester
Are you any good at leads? I'm not very good at them, and to be honest I'm completely shagged. Long 16 hour day at work tomorrow too. I'd ask Malleus but I think I've asked him for too many favours lately. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not great (they're always an after thought for me), but I'll see if I can help. Nev1 (talk) 22:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You want a lead? I'll give you a lead. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice one lads, thanks :) Now I await the fun with The Dark Side of the Moon and Gropecunt Lane :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, I didn't realise Dark Side of the Moon was at GAN. I don't often edit music articles, but I'd definitely like to see that one get some recognition. Nev1 (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

pics
Have fun. Let me know if you need a pic of the stocks. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's just great, they're a big help beyond aesthetics. Because of the pictures I knew to look for info on the skate park. I've started an amenities section with stuff I found on the local youth organisation while looking for stuff about the skate park, and I'll add something about the churches to the section as Iridescent suggested. I'm now looking for sources about the town centre and market to add to the economy section if it's notable. I particularly like the photo of Erlam Farm, you can see where one of the windows has been blocked up (probably because of window tax when it was first built). Nev1 (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Almost forgot, I don't think a picture of the stocks will be necessary as the article's only short and there's only room for a few pictures. Nev1 (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

List of Grade I listed buildings in North Somerset
Hi, Unless you know something I don't I think you've jumped the gun a bit as List of Grade I listed buildings in North Somerset has not been promoted (yet).&mdash; Rod talk 21:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I was going to comment on the FLC (support) but found it had been promoted. It's a nice article, good effort. Nev1 (talk) 21:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks - funny how it appears there before Featured list candidates/List of Grade I listed buildings in North Somerset/archive1??&mdash; Rod talk 21:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, I thinks it's the same for FACs. So to keep as up to date as possible when I have candidates I want to keep an eye on, I've got Template:Announcements/New featured content on my watchlist. Nev1 (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ta - now I've got to go & nominate the next FLC - GI listed buildings in W Somerset.&mdash; Rod talk 21:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK
I have commented on your DYK nomination here. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  03:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hillforts in Cheshire
Knowing your interest in this subject, the following website could be helpful: www.habitatsandhillforts.co.uk. Cheers. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Cheers, that'll be useful for any Cheshire hill fort, especially the current status and conservation. I'm not sure why the site doesn't include Oakmere though as Forde-Johnston, James (1962). "The Iron Age Hillforts of Lancashire and Cheshire". Transactions of the Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquarian Society 72: 9–46 records a hill fort at Oakmere, as does a 1979 gazetteer. All the same, it's definitely a good site. I'll have to get round to expanding the articles on Cheshire's hill forts at some point maybe there's even a list in it.
 * The Good Topic seems to be going well after some problems were smoothed out. I left a note on Nergaal's talk page after the title of the topic was changed, so hopefully Nergaal might change his/her mind. With four supports, list of castles in Cheshire looks in good shape, so things are ticking over nicely. Nev1 (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

New image
Only you can change this...

the Cathedral image you uploaded needs cropping from the left a wee bit but I can't reupload. Could you do this as 'm ignoring Chrisieboy and added it back in, it's from more or less the same angle as before so I don't know what his problem is GrumpyGuts (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The image has been cropped and re-uploaded to commons, but it might take a while for the change to show in the Peterborough article. I've no idea what his problem is with it either, and since he's ignoring the discussion I started on the talk page it appears he doesn't want to explain. Nev1 (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for List of castles in Cheshire
Hi nice work. Two recommendations though. Alter the width of the list table so it spans the whole width of the page to minimise the length. Second add a column for image so you can tidely add an image of each castle in the table. If you can do this I honestly think this article could be up for Featured List candidates in the near future. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 12:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought the table already did span the whole width of the page (it did on my browser), but I've added "width=100%" just in case which will hopefully fix that problem. As for the images, since not every castle has an image (and Beeston has three) a gallery was decided upon as it also gave the table more space to breathe. Thanks for the comments, and the list is currently at FLC. Nev1 (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Congratulations. I didn't think this one was going to make it after all the "discussions".  Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought it would have been a real shame if it didn't, but after Scheduled Monuments in Cheshire I remained hopeful. I thought it might actually pass FLC before DYK! Nev1 (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * FL too! Congrats. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'm really pleased with the article. The FLC has been closed as a promotion but it may take a few days for the bot to get round to updating the talk page. Nev1 (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Edinburgh
How can this city be rated ahead of Chicago, Los Angeles, Sydney and Melbourne. When did Edinburgh get awarded the Olympic Games? Wallie (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Because it's a national capital, the assessment scale for WP:CITIES is unambiguous in this case (see WikiProject Cities/Assessment). You can measure importance by anything you like. When did Sydney University produce someone who revolutionised the theory of evolution? Consensus at WP:CITIES has decided that capital cities are of top importance. Nev1 (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Edinburgh is NOT a national capital. London is. Nor are Zurich or Geneva. Bern is. Also, New York City is not a national captial. Wallie (talk) 05:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes it is. Nev1 (talk) 12:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I am just trying to get this right. Cardiff and Edinburgh are not on any of these lists of capitals in Wikipedia. Wallie (talk) 14:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This classification seems to concentrate on whether the city is a "capital" cr not. This means that national capitals are "top" and just about every other city is "high" as anything that is a city is probably a state/province/region/county capital. In most countries, these two account for nearly all of the cities. Wallie (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Since when were Wikipedia lists the ultimate authority? Edinburgh is the capital city of Scotland (see ref above) and Cardiff is the capital city of Wales (see here).  And what have Olympic Games got to do with capitals? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Scotland and Wales are not sovereign countries. Therefore their capitals do not qualify under the guidelines. Wallie (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

My rollback on Edinburgh
Re: Your edit here, thanks for reverting my revert of my rollback ;-) I hadn't actually looked at the edit - I hit "rollback" instead of an IP's contributions link, panicked, and undid myself. I was editing (well, I was trying to browse rather than edit...) from an internet-enabled phone and hit the wrong thing. Luckily you looked into matters in more detail - many thanks for that!

Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 11:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries, I've done it myself a few times. Happy editing, Nev1 (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Cheshire Monastic Houses
Have you seen this? Would it not be better as a list rather than a template? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Have I mentioned something like this somewhere? Because literally the other day I was thinking about a list of the monastic houses in Cheshire and was taking a look at the wikipedia articles on the abbeys (although I hadn't come across this). Definitely should be a list rather than a template. In fact it looks as if it's already formatted as a list. Nev1 (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)