User talk:Nev1/Archives/October–December 2008

Hugh Mason
Hello - I have reviewed Hugh Mason, which you listed at the Good Article nominees page. My review of the article can be found here. As you can see, I've raised quite a few issues with the article. Before you panic/become depressed/burn me in effigy, though, here are some things to bear in mind:
 * The points I raise are not necessarily all things that need to be addressed before I list it as a GA. Instead, they are things that I think could improve the article.  In my view, the actual GA status is of secondary importance in the GA process; what's more important is improving the article, and I think that goal is best served by making as many suggestions as possible.
 * In my experience, I'm among the most stringent GA reviewers out there, especially in the "well-written" category, where I tend to review GA and FA candidates in essentially the same way. Again, I do this because I think it's best for the article; however, if you think the points I've raised are too nit-picky or minor and you'd rather not address them, I may be willing to promote the article without them all being addressed.
 * The opinions I express in my GA reviews are just that - my opinions (I also express some things, like grammatical rules or the requirements of WP:V, that are not my opinions). If you disagree with any of my opinions, please say so; you don't need to convince me that you're right, just that your position is a reasonable one. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's perhaps a tough review, but I've been through the GA process to know that it's about improving the article first and getting the little green dot second, and I agree with the majority of what you've said. Hopefully I'll be able to sort it all out soon. Nev1 (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Great - I'll try to have another look at it tonight. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just went over it again. Most of the issues are indeed resolved - I've bolded those that, in my view, require further action.  As well, could you look at my comments under "broadness"?  Some of them may not be actionable, but I'd at least appreciate a response on them.  Great work so far. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say it passes well-written now, but could you have a look at the broadness section? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Great work - I've passed the article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)
The September 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) 23:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Clifton, Nottingham
Oops, I apologise profusely, I must have edited the wrong version. I was trying to work out why it didn't have a category by looking back into the article's history. Eventually I figured out that it was missing a tag at the end, and must have hit "Edit this page" when viewing an older version. Really, a mistake, many apologies. Stephenb (Talk) 07:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Wesleyan Methodism in Glodwick
Hi Nev1. Many thanks for you helpful suggestion on this article. I have left some questions on the Greater Manchester page. I would be very grateful if you could give me guidance. Ian (talk) 10:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Anthony Burgess
Keep up the good work. I don't know enough about Burgess to be wholly helpful, but I did know serious article issues when I saw them. Thanks for the effort. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I know probably less about Burgess than you do, but this article has been bugging me. I intend to get hold of one of his biographies, so I can rewrite the early life sections (I'd like to do more, but I have other calls on my time and Burgess seems to have led a packed life). It's going to be a long process improving the article, but it might help to raise awareness about it: I've dropped the Greater Manchester wikiproject a note about it, so hopefully one of their 50 or so memebers will be able to help. At the least, I'm sure they'll keep an eye on the article and make sure IPs don't go reinstating huge amounts again. Nev1 (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Royton
Hi Nev1, ref you undo of the people list, if you care to browse through the other Greater Manchester district pages you can see that list are the common thread. This is because it allows you browse through the names easily without having to go through lots of unnessacary text. Please revert to my last edit. Thank you and happy editing (Anthony of the Desert (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)).


 * On the contrary, featured articles such as Altrincham, Shaw and Crompton, Stretford, and Oldham all use prose rather than lists. As these are the best wikipedia has to offer, these should be imitated (the GAs under WP:GM that use the same format are: Ashton-under-Lyne, Sale, Greater Manchester, Urmston, Didsbury, Milnrow, and Royton). I won't be reinstating your edits, as my change was supported by policy: "Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs". I suggest that you read through the articles I have mentioned so that you are familiar with the standards editors at WP:GM try to achieve. Happy editing. Nev1 (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Anthony is probably correct in that many of the GM settlement articles do indeed use lists for notable people. He should reflect on whether or not they ought to be using lists though. Part of the point in getting articles like those you mention up to GA/FA is to set an example for others to follow. The standard expected is clear; why not follow it? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Although I see you point, I have placed the issue on the Manchester Prjoect page to seek guidance on the issue for clarity and also to unify the project onto a common thread (Anthony of the Desert (talk) 18:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)).


 * Good idea. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Steve Croft DYK.
Nev1, Just picked up your suggestion about trying for a Did You Know for the new article on Steve Croft. From the content as it is the only thing I could think of was that 12 years after training at Cranmer Hall he returned there as its Warden. However it did give me an idea to check. According to this article http://www.sheffield-diocese.org.uk/Past_Bishops_of_Sheffield.html on his predecessors he will be the first Bishop of Sheffield born in Yorkshire. What do you think - worth adding and submitting for DYK? ChapterandVerse (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, add it and go for it. If you need any help don't hesitate to ask me or anyone who has experience of the DYK process. Nev1 (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Have done. ChapterandVerse (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks good, fingers crossed it gets accepted. Nev1 (talk) 01:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Stockport
Thanks for your message. I think the editor is acting in good faith. The unfortunate thing is that Stockport doesn’t really lend itself to simple characterisation, even ‘traditionally in both X and Y’. The "Stockport" of the article is the county borough as defined in 1974. That area of land lies both north and south of the Mersey. For a very long time, the Mersey was the Lancs/Ches boundary. Now, the Stockport of say 1850 lay, for most purposes, south of the river. In the late 1800s Stockport expanded north of the river into Heaton Norris, and took the Cheshire boundary with it. In the early 1900s Stockport expanded to include Reddish, and again took the Cheshire boundary with it.

How far back does 'traditional' go? Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 12:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Scout Moor Wind Farm
I think it's entirely possible to get User:Richerman/sandbox upto a WP:GAC with a bit of TLC. Certainly a B-class. What do you think? --Jza84 | Talk  16:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's definately a potential GA. It's well written, the presentation is good, and it's not too technical. Stats such as 65MW mean nothing to the average reader, but equating it with 40,000 is a great way of making the article accessible. Maybe a bit of background could be added such as why the council thought renewable energy was important (probably obvious, I know, but it wouldn't hurt). Since there is n o talk page, I'll raise a couple of points here:
 * ...identified as "an excellent site for a wind farm" - identified by whom?
 * Could we get a reference for the complaints of the campaign group? Especially for phrases like "seriously detrimental visual impact"; it's their POV and needs to be soureced.
 * Who is David Bellamy? I see he's a Professor, but what makes his opinion relevant? He could be a professor of English.
 * 4,000MWH of electricity had been exported: I think this needs an equivalent; using figures from the rest of the article, it's enough electricy to supply the average needs of 40,000 homes for 61.5 hours (or 10,000 homes for 246 hours).
 * Has the Haslingdon proposal run into opposition (maybe not relevant, but I'm interested)
 * As I said it looks very promising already. Has Richerman mentioned when it's going live? Nev1 (talk) 17:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! This is great stuff; I'll try to make the amendments as appropriate. Richerman hasn't mentioned a date, but I'm keen to push this to a GA (I haven't dropped one for a while!). I love collaborations, so I think this could be the article I've been looking for. :) --Jza84 | Talk  22:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I know what you mean, I'm looking for an article to get in my sights too, and collaborations are always rewarding. I think a map might be useful for the article. Nev1 (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Australian Twenty20 International cricketers
I have made some improvements on the above article to expand it a bit. I do not know what else to put to expand it any further. Your are welcome to remove the edits if believe are not needed as are probably in the 20/20 stts pages. 02blythed (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help (on the Irish list as well!). I can't see the list getting developed much more because Australia simply haven't played enough T20s, but I think enough has been done to prevent the list from undergoing a FL review. Even though the review process is 3 weeks, I can't see all the lists mentioned on WT:CRIC getting saved. It's time consuming enough updating a list with 30 players on, but lists of 160+ would be a mammoth task. Even then the work's not done as every FL need a developed lead. The project seems a busy busy to deal with the lists so I decided to see if I could develop a couple of the shorter ones. Thanks again for your help! Nev1 (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Wigan / Pemberton, for your information
As stated by the Director GB Historical GIS, Department of Geography, Buckingham Building, University of Portsmouth, ....

'"Wigan", by itself, is a place not an administrative area'.

From that statement it can be seen that Wigan 'Parish', Wigan 'Borough', Wigan 'District', Wigan 'Postal Area' and the 'Metropolitan Borough of' Wigan, are much larger areas containing other towns and villages as well as Wigan itself.

Wigan (the town of) and Pemberton (the town of) were joined together, administratively, in order to qualify the union as a county borough. The population of Wigan (not Wigan 'borough', Wigan 'parish' or Wigan 'urban area' ... but WIGAN, the town of) was not high enough for it to achieve 'borough' status on it's own, hence the joining of the two towns, Wigan AND Pemberton. In 1974, when the 'local government act 1972' came into force, the borough of Wigan was disbanded and that area was taken into the greater 'Metropolitan Borough'. It is now referred to as the 'Former Wigan Borough' (the union of Wigan AND Pemberton, two towns).

Administrative area boundaries have varied a lot over time, and will vary again and again in future. The 'town' of Wigan, the place which bears the name, will not change. Please acknowledge that 'Wigan' and the 'Metropolitan Borough of Wigan' are different entities.

The two Wikipedia articles, Wigan and the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan, should be kept separate and only things regarding the town of Wigan should be included in the Wigan article.

Other points are, There has been few coal mines in Wigan as, due to geological faulting, there is no coal beneath Wigan. Wigan is, by far, NOT the largest town in the Metropolitan Borough. To say so is stupid. Even the 'former Wigan borough' (Wigan and Pemberton together) has less area than Ashton in Makerfield. You refer to 'Wigan' having a population of 80,000. Is that Wigan 'Constituency' - Aspull, Whelley, Pemberton, Shevington, Standish, and Wigan? The voting list shows approx. 66,000 for that area, so 80,000 is clearly on the 'high side' for Wigan alone! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.85.29 (talk) 02:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I feel that the ongoing problem here is the reference to Local Government/Council/Administrative Areas rather than actual places/towns/villages, so much so that the identities of these places are becoming unknown.

Regards, JemmyH. (ps. I'm not new!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.85.29 (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply Jeremy. I am fully aware that the metropolitan borough of Wigan and district, parish etc and the town itself are separate entities, no one has disputed that (I'm not new either!). And as you indirectly pointed out, the Wigan constituency does not cover the same area as Wigan. Constituencies are a poor way of deciding a town's population, I can think of an example of the top of my head that Sale, Greater Manchester is split between two constituencies! I'm afraid Pemberton lost its status as a town when it administratively became a part of Wigan. I get the feeling you're not going to like this, but the Office for National Statistics agrees with me. Here's the spreadsheet with figures from the 2001 census. Note that Wigan has a popualtion of 81,203 but Pemberton is not recorded at all. Considering that settlements as small as 2,000 people are on there, it would indicate that Pemberton is not a separte town. Now, you may not like this, but the definition of the settlement by ONS is a very useful one: all their statistics and all the historical data on visionofbritain.org.uk uses these boundaries, making comparison between historic population and current easy.
 * So you see, to say Wigan is a large town really isn't stupid at all.
 * I don't think you need to worry about the identiy of Pemberton becoming lost, it would be far more constructive and informative if, instead of edit warring over the Wigan article, you expanded the Pemberton article. Wigan is poorly covered on wikipedia, and there's plenty of room for improvement. Perhaps you'd find it interesting to learn a little about the area's history and convey it to wikipedia's readers. As I don't own any books on the area, or the towns in it, I'd certainly be interested to read a welll referenced piece on it. Nev1 (talk) 02:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that political boundaries are widely used for numerous purposes, but the original places are still clearly marked by 'Land Boundaries', not 'Political Boundaries'. The two are different. I actually live in Ashton in Makerfield, which is split, politically, into two 'metropolitan boroughs', St.Helens and the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan. Part has a Wigan (WN) postcode and part has a Warrington (WA) postcode, but it's still Ashton in Makerfield, a 'standalone urban area', NOT Wigan. I agree that local government areas have changed, but the towns remain. Ince has been recommended to join Wigan constituency, but it's still Ince. Atherton is moving into the Metropolitan Borough of Bolton, but it'll still be Atherton. I must point out that for a town to lose it's name, or to create a new town, takes a lot more than just adjusting the council ward boundary (as was done with Pemberton).
 * Thanks for the contact, Nev (I'm James, by the way, not Jeremy), however, I consider myself well versed on the area's history as I've been here for nearly sixty years. I have also spent 22 of those years in a management position with the NCB and British Coal and can, again, say that some of the references to coal mining are laughable.

Regards, Jemmy (Jimmy, but pronounced differently)H. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.85.29 (talk) 03:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry about getting your name wrong, it won't happen again.
 * Since Wigan became a county borough in 1888, it seems anachronistic to suggest it was joined with Pemberton in 1904 to allow it to gain county borough status. I can see why it might appear that Pemberton is a town, Wigan council itself says it has a town centre. However that does not change the fact that Pemberton is not recognised by the ONS as a town. It recognises all nine towns of Tameside (the smallest of which has less than 10,000 people), and yet it doesn't recognise Pemberton. This is because it's considered an area of Wigan. When the people who make the rules say it's not a town, I tend to agree they're right. There are officially only 5 recognised towns in the borough of Wigan and Pemberton isn't one of these. For all intents and purposes, Pemberton is not a town. It was historically a separate settlement, but has since been incorporated into Wigan, and I think a note to this affect should be placed in the Pemberton article. This need not take away from its identity, its history is different to that of Wigan's although of course the two are linked. I came across a similar situation with Sale, Greater Manchester and Ashton upon Mersey. Originally separate settlements, Ashton became part of Sale, legally and administratively in 1930. It is now very much a part of the town of Sale.
 * The point you make about political boundaries not defining a town is a valid one, however that is not how the ONS groups its figures. They are divided into settlements rather than political entities. So although Ashton-in-Makerfield is split across two boroughs, there are not figures for each half of the town. You clearly know a lot about your area, and you'd make a good addition to wikipedia (especially as many of the Wigan area articles are in poor shape), and I think your time would be better spent in areas other than insisting Pemberton is a town. Happy editing. Nev1 (talk) 05:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a note I agree with Nev1. --Jza84 | Talk  11:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)
The October 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) 00:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Anthony Burgess
Sorry about removing all the maintenance tags, I only intended to delete the one concerning lack of sources, because when I read the article I found it was actually swamped with them. I didn't realise I had to provide information regarding the provided citations, for some reason I thought the system just did that automatically, so thanks for telling me. The main purpose of my edit was to shorten the opening and make it more cohesive; I guess I just got a bit caught up in the moment and started changing everything. --6afraidof7 (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:GTRMANC
Thanks for the welcome. I hope to start working on something soon; currently I don't have my own computer (I'm using an old slow one, full of viruses, Internet Explorer... ugh). I was told by Malleus Fatuorum it's a very active project, so I look forward to taking part. Best wishes, – How do you turn this on (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Third English Civil War
Why did you change the format of the dates from month day to day month with this edit? --PBS (talk) 21:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's an article on an English subject so it's standard to use English date formats (ie: day month). The relevant policy is here. Nev1 (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * the Manual of Style is a guideline and not policy. I think your ought to consider "retaining the existing format" unless there is a consensus for change expressed on the talk page as both formats are used in Britain (although I would not deny that more used "day month" probably around 10% are the other way around). For example "month day" is found in the Telegraph, and the timesonline and the Guardian. --PBS (talk) 13:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll raise it on the MOS talk page when I have time and we can discuss it further. --PBS (talk) 13:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see why you're making an issue of it. Nev1 (talk) 13:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Three FLRCs related to WP:CRICKET
I am contacting you on this because I believe that you are the most decidated user from WP:CRICKET. As you may know, there are currently three FLRC nominations. They are here, here, and here. Thank you for your co-operation. --  SRE.K.A nnoyomous .L. 24 [c] 02:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your notification, I'll see if I can get the articles fixed in time. Nev1 (talk) 02:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Yorkshirian/Gennarous
Hate to bother you, but might I ask you to take a look at this? Kafka Liz (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Pictures of Wigan
The shopping centre is the 'Grand Arcade'. I'll take a few pics as soon as I can, if I haven't by next monday remind me again. Thanks.TheFamousPeter (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Cricketer categories and nationalities
Following your work to change the international cricketer lists from e.g. List of Australian ODI cricketers to List of Australia ODI cricketers, I think we have a similar problem with categories, e.g. Category:Australian_ODI_cricketers should really be Category:Australia_ODI_cricketers. Do you agree, and if so, what's the best way to go about changing them? (I did post this to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket, but I think it may have got a bit lost!) wisems (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you're right about the need for a move. It will be much easier to change the categories than it was the articles as deletions needed to be made so an admin had to do it. Anyone can move an article, just click the move tab at the top of a page and follow the instructions. I'll get started, but feel free to have a go moving a page yourself to get familiar with the process. I'm not sure if we'll have to change the links in articles or if the redirect created by the move will be sufficient, we'll see. Nev1 (talk) 00:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, there is no move button for categories. Damn, that means sorting this out by creating new categories, deleting the old ones, and manually changing the categories in articles. That will take a long time that I don't really have at the moment, I'll make a start tomorrow. Nev1 (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Am I missing something, or could we just use Template:Category_redirect? wisems (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Good call, I didn't know about that. That will make things a lot easier to do (I hadn't started changing anything because of the scale). Nev1 (talk) 02:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've had a go at moving the Canada Twenty20 category (and I see you've done the same with the Australia ODI category). From a bit of a digging around, it looks like RussBot will take care of re-categorising the individual player articles. There seems to be a 7-day delay before the bot kicks in, so I guess we'll find out next week whether the change has worked like we expected. In the meantime, I'll try and find time to move some more of the categories. wisems (talk) 18:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think between us we've changed all of the categories now. Looks like the bot has kicked in this morning and dealt with the first of the categories we changed (Category:Australia ODI cricketers and Category:Canada Twenty20 International cricketers), so it's now just a matter of waiting for it to pick up the rest and the job will be done. Thanks for your help. wisems (talk) 09:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's looking good, the bots working fine. I think there may be more articles to move, for example I think English cricket team in India in 2008-09 should be England cricket team in India in 2008-09. This would require a lot of page moves to bring every article in line, and something on such a scale should be confirmed with the project. I think everyone would agree, but I'd rather be sure. Nev1 (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I need admin help ....
There are at present two articles, Manchester Mark I and Manchester Mark 1, with the Mark 1 article being a redirect to the Mark I article. This is the wrong way round though, because the machine was actually called the Manchester Mark 1, so the redirect ought to be from Mark I to Mark 1. Any chance you could take a look? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorted. The Manchester uni link in the MM1 article uses 1 instead of I, so that's good enough for me. Nev1 (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent service, thanks. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 18:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Prompt maybe, but whenever I delete a page I half expect the encyclopedia to come crashing down. Nev1 (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester December Newsletter, Issue XII

 * Good job on this! Thanks Nev1! --Jza84 | Talk  16:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry it's a bit late, but I think it's important to keep project members up to date. I also updated the inactive members list. Nev1 (talk) 16:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)
The November 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) 17:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Loch Leven Castle
Thanks for your review comments. I found the Loch Leven Castle article while patrolling and thought it was very interesting and worthy of consideration. I will address your comments as best I can and hopefully, with the help of the Wiki community, we can improve this article. I will try to update your comments on its review page as changes are made so you can easily see the progress being made. Thanks again. Truthanado (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks from me too for the review and promotion. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Wigan
Hi Nev1, I was an active editor some time ago and have recently returned to Wiki. I live in the Orrell area of Wigan and just wanted to say hi as I've noticed your significant contributions to the Wigan article. Please feel free to contact me anytime regarding Wigan (or Greater Manchester in general) and I look forward to working with you on the articles in the future. Thanks. Man2 (talk) 14:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Radcliffe, Greater Manchester
Unfortunately the stone age etc are edits made by other users - when I first encountered the page they were already there. I could go back to the library and get more specifics, but it will have to wait for a while. I could email the museum and ask for a date for the axe, but the council aren't the best at getting back to me... Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The Tithe Barn is in Radcliffe, its here Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't even looked for one although I'll put it on my to-do list. I've been concerned mainly with other aspects of the town.  I do vaguely recall that someone nicked the roof a few years back though! Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the frustrating thing about working from library books that are miles away :) I have a 1927 os map with an introduction by Paul Hindle, which does state 'nearly 60 mills', but the reference is from the Sunderland book.  I'll check what I wrote on my laptop, later.  I could have made a mistake, or it could be what is written in the book.  Maybe I missed 'including' when I made my notes. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've replied re Whitefield on my talk page Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Diocese
I'm entirely uncertain about Roman times - I can only go from what others write, I can't even remember if I even wrote that section :) I've just done 15 miles on the mountain bike with a cough, through the Irwell Valley's best mud and horse muck, so I'll have a look at it later on. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Turnpikes
Haven't a clue who got that act of parliament - I doubt I'll ever find out unless I can find the minutes of any of the turnpike trusts in the area, and I suspect they'll be either destroyed, or buried in some archive somewhere, perhaps in a family collection. Right now I'm not inclined to go looking :) That line is already in the Transport section anyway, so I've removed it - it looked like an old unreferenced edit, perhaps from when I started improving the article. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

E-mail
E-mail headed your way. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Danebury
Hiya Nev1, Good work on the Danebury article. I didn't want to make a change to the page as you've done all that hard work yourself, but I noticed that it says it was built in the 6th century. Of course, it should be 2500 BP or 6th century BCE (Before the Common Era). It's hard to spot these things when you're so close to an article, but obvious on someone else's. Good luck for your GAN. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * When using AD, it's standard to use BC, BCE is mixing formats, something wikipedia isn't keen on. I don't think there's any policy on which is preferred (ie: BC/AD or BCE/CE) but there is a huge debate about it here (I just took a look to see this there was any policy and stumbled across this). Usually, people don't mind which is used as long as the use is consistent (much like British-English or American-English). It's not massively important, but I do prefer BC/AD as that's what academic books. Thanks for noticing the Danebury article been changed, it's nice to know people read it. Nev1 (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Phew. Just had a quick look at the debate. Think I'll leave them to it. :) I personally use BP for Neolithic/Bronze Age and BCE/CE for more recent events. Simply because I'm not Christian, so I don't tend to reference religious stuff. I wasn't suggesting you should change from your AD/BC, it's a personal choice that I wouldn't want to see editors dictated to about. I was just telling you that the article says it was built in the 6th century. People tend to default to AD/CE unless they are told otherwise, so they would naturally think it was built in the 6th century AD - 1200 years after it was built. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah got it, I'd slightly misunderstood you. As for the debate, life is just to short. Next time, don't worry about editing an article someone else is working on, if you see a mistake plunge right in :-) Do you use 1950 as BP? Thanks, Nev1 (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. I would normally just have made the edit, but as you're going for GAN it would be so much nicer for you to have done it all yourself. My GAN is just above yours in the history section (Parc Cwm long cairn), that's how I found Danebury. I do use 1950 as BP, but it doesn't usually tend to be that accurate that 58 (soon to be 59) years would make any real difference. Cheers, & all the best for your GAN. Daicaregos (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Aha, I had noticed the article on the long cairn and was thinking of maybe reviewing it later! Disclaimer: I know very little next to nothing about the Neolithic It looks like a likely GA (and I mean literally look, I've not read it yet), and in my experience that's a decent rule of thumb about how an article will do at GAN. I'll take a proper look later. You're right about 58 years not making much of a difference, but most people will assume it means literally the present. Nev1 (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Please do (review it). I see you have a wealth of experience, so even if you don't do a full review I'm sure you would be able to provide some good advice to improve it. That's the plan anyway - to get it to be as good as it can be. It's never going to be a high traffic article, but it would be nice if the people who stumble across it found it interesting and informative. It's my first GAN. I don't want to start a new article until I find out what I'm doing right and what I'm doing wrong - I don't want to repeat my mistakes. Daicaregos (talk) 08:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've reviewed the article and with a couple of minor tweaks, it will be a GA; you can see the review on the talk page. It's on hold, but that's usually what happens after a GA review (although I was tempted to promoted it and skip the holding period). The period is usually about a week in which editors have the opportunity to improve the article; there's no hard and fast deadline though, and if progress is being made most reviewers will grant extra time. If you finish the changes early, just give the reviewer a nudge. In terms of content, your article seems very good, and aside from a little elaboration of uncommon terms and perhaps acquiring a plan, I have very little to suggest. There are a few formatting issues, but I don't believe they should prevent an article being promoted to GA (although FA reviewers are more stringent). I'd never have guessed it was your first GAN, and am impressed. Especially since, for historical articles giving the subject context is very important.
 * For future reference, when you start an article, you might want to consider submitting it to Template talk:Did you know. This is where facts from newly created articles are chosen to feature on the main page in the DKY? section. If an articles has 1,500 characters of text (no including wiki markup) and was created in the past 5 days (or was expanded 5 fold in the past 5 days) it can be nominated. They won't tell you how good your article is or how to improve it, but it will gain exposure. I hope you continue to contribute so well to wikipedia :-) Nev1 (talk) 14:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow. Thank you very much for the time and the trouble you've taken to review Parc Cwm long cairn. I will try to take your criticism on board and take it in the spirit it was given. This is exactly what the article needed and the constructive criticism you provided will most certainly help to improve the article. Some of the points you made will be easier/quicker than others to rectify (moving the history section will be the first step), but I'll try to get through all of them over the next few days. Thank you for your kind words, too. I would return the favour and review Danebury, but I don't have the sort of experience you have yet.
 * Re the Did you know? - The first two articles I created - St Lythans burial chamber and Afon Clun - were picked up and submitted by another editor. They both appeared on DYK. This one wasn't, and by the time I realised you could self nominate I'd missed the deadline. I self nominated for Parkmill, though. So, you live and learn. I may have some questions on the review, but I'll pose them on the GA Review page. Thanks again, Daicaregos (talk) 16:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Whitefield - citing refs
Hi, thanks for the tutorial on citations but I still messed it up when I previewed the thing & so reverted to a statement unsupported by a full reference. How would I cite a specific page of the following:

author - John F Wilson publisher - John F Wilson title - A History Of Whitefield publication date - November 1979 isbn - 0950679518 page - 1

Thanks Sitush (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the further info on formatting which you gave me, and for fixing my error in applying it. I think I've got the hang of it now! Sitush (talk) 11:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Leeds: Pr Philip et al
Just wondered what you thought about User talk:Traceylovell? :S --Jza84 | Talk  23:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I had my suspicions the moment I looked at the contributions. Single purpose account, straight into the debate and talking about majorities, possible sock. It might be the case that one of the IPs registered an account so I think we should ask this user if they have anything to declare. Nev1 (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've left another message to see what kind of response we get. My vice is struggling with the whole concept of WP:AGF, particularly when it comes to socks (I tend to go for WP:SPADE and WP:BRAIN!). I think at best its a case of WP:TEAMWORK.


 * I'm trying to locate a book entitled "Local Government in England and Wales : A Guide to the New System" published in 1974 which apparently has maps and commentary on the former and (then) future local government arrangements. I could then churn out a few maps for West Yorkshire and Merseyside like the G-MCR one that has been quite helpful. However, the book is a slippery one, and I have yet to get hold of a copy. --Jza84 | Talk  00:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Since wrongly blocking Endrick Shellycoat, I'm a bit wary of blocking. It's a frustrating argument, the new editors keep ignoring what the established editors are saying so people keep repeating themselves. Once this is over, the best way to prevent it happening again would probably be to expand the City of Leeds article, a la City of Salford. Nev1 (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think so too, that's a good suggestion. Or else getting Salford to GA, and thus being able to cite the pair as a workable, achievable example! ;).... infact it isn't far off GA, if we get that Peterloo spirit going again!


 * WP:YORKS should step in too really. They are notable by their absence. I'm reluctant to get any further involved with Yorkshire content... the memories return!... although perhaps the whole issue isn't so surprising! ;) --Jza84 | Talk  00:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd be great to get Salford to GA, but a collaboration will probably have to wait a bit. Things might be slow for the next two weeks, I think there's something going on around then... Nev1 (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The amount of money I've spent, I don't think I can forget! It would be great to get Salford upto GA though yes. I know Malleus was very keen at one point, and I might give Joshii a nudge. I might get a Salford book in the new years sales if I can. :)


 * That said, the City of Leeds is in a terrible state. No wonder people want to disassociate themselves from it in favour of Leeds. --Jza84 | Talk  01:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

(<-) I think I've managed to get all of the "geographic" GM successes into User:Jza84/Sandbox2. I'm waiting of User:Warofdreams to create a locator template using a different map, but otherwise, I've achieved what I set out to do: highlight where our successes lie. There's a little too much Trafford success for my liking mind ;) --Jza84 | Talk  17:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks great. Trafford isn't completely obscured by stars, so I've got a lot of work to do ;-) Wow, there's a definite divide with Wigan, Rochdale, Bolton, and Bury only having 4 GA/FAs between them. I get the feeling that's going to change with Sitush joining WP:GM and I think Parrot of Doom's got another Bury settlement in the works. Plus Wigan's improving steadily. I'm surprised Stockport doesn't have any recognised content, especially since the Stockport article now has a very good history section courtesy of Mr Stephen. Bolton seems a bit derelict, and as far as I know there's little approaching GA. Nev1 (talk) 17:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's certainly helpful to identify areas of strenth and weakness. Of course we knew there was something of a "corridor" of achievement, but seeing it plotting out on a map really shows how our project is performing. You're right about how some of the outlying areas a little overshadowed though. In the New Year I'm thinking Denshaw, Abram, Chadderton and Salford might be targets of mine (infact, I was wondering if you could help put something together for a new Demography section for Chadderton?). I've also wanted to work on Middleton and Heywood too. Abram is something of an anomoly - if we could get that to GA, we'd have a good example from that neck of the woods to encourage people from that side of Manchester to get involved. Because it's so small, I don't think it would take much to do.


 * Once I've had a response from Warofdreams, I'll take the map to WT:GM, and see if we could place it somewhere within our project space. --Jza84 | Talk  17:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Abram was certainly a surprise, it almost developed by accident. I'd like to improve Hale, Greater Manchester to GA and tidy up Bowdon, Greater Manchester (although GA might be a long way off). I'd sort out Chadderton with a standard demography section as soon as Whitefield gets one. Shouldn't be too long ;-) Not sure about landmarks for Abram, no Grade I or II* listed buildings (although there will probably be some II) and no Scheduled Ancient Monuments. Nev1 (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I only really picked on the Abram page because I found an image of its former town hall on geograph! Once that was in place I just had to start replacing some of the crap that had settled there (so to speak), then that seems to have triggered a bit of interest from yourself. I'm quite confident we could get at least a B-class out of it with a bit more TLC.


 * I've fired up the Chadderton book I have to see if I can make progress with it. I was quite pleased with its standard until I saw Parrot's mammoth Radcliffe! What a fantastic job he's done there. --Jza84 | Talk  18:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Whitefield and Chadderton now have demography sections, and I updated Royton's as I saw it was rather thin. The backlog at DYK is pretty large at the moment, but I'm pretty sure our hook will get chosen. Parrot of Doom's effort on Radcliffe is truly spectacular, there's no other word for it. Nev1 (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Parc Cwm long cairn
Hi Nev1, I've got as far as I can with the GAN review on Parc Cwm long cairn. I have a few questions. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Re Capitalisation: should we go for whatever is in the referenced article? i.e. "Red Fox; Arctic Fox ; Brown Bear; Tundra Vole; and possibly reindeer." Also, in the next sentence - "mammoth, woolly rhinoceros, Red Deer and Giant Deer"
 * Re Plan of the site: I couldn't find a plan. If I were to draw a plan from this image, with labels, would that be WP:OR?
 * Re The use of the conversion template: Not sure what to do here. WP:MOS says single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words. However, conversion template only works with numerals. Please advise.


 * Replied on article talk page. I've also promoted the article as all the major points have been addressed, capitalisation and templates are just formatting issues and not too important at GA (although FA is a different matter), and the plan is not essential, though would be useful. Nev1 (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for the time and effort you took with your review. You even made it a pleasant experience (bet that's a first for GAN). I'll have a go at the plan over the next few days. If I ever manage to get my head around MOS I might even try for FA ;-). Thanks again, Nev1, & good luck with your GAN on Danebury. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, it's under review now in fact. GAN should be a good experience, if editors get put of by brusque comments, who's going to be around to improve this encyclopedia? Don't rush to FAC, it's a lot more demanding than GA and while reviews often help, many editors get frustrated over reviewers' strict adherence to the Bible that is MOS (although it's ever changing). I'll keep the article on my watchlist, I'd be interested to see any changes. And it's been a pleasure to help you improve the article, I hope it's the first of many you take to GAN :-) Happy editing. Nev1 (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Dick Pollard
Hi. I think I'm just about done with Dick Pollard as far as I can get him. I don't have any Lancashire cricket histories that might give others' views on him and his contribution to the county's cricket, and nor do I know what he did between 1952 and his death in 1985. Having been at Arsenal v Liverpool today and then in the pub afterwards, I suspect it could do with a read and a copyedit!. Cheers. Johnlp (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Sale article
I'll take a peek. It's a whopper. Thought - under comprehensiveness criteria, you'll get stick for the notable people listing. Is that a comprehensive list of every blue-linked person ever to have lived there? Can't be. So is the definition of notable or having lived in Sale POV? It's a tricky one, and similar to one we encountered with the football club articles we took to FAC - we wanted to include lists of notable players, but everyone who played for the club is notable. In the end, we abandoned the idea and included references to list articles or Cats. You could do the same here? --Dweller (talk) 12:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Illustrative of my point is the highly signficant sentence: "Several members of Lancashire County Cricket Club have resided in the town, most notably the England player Cyril Washbrook." Most notably according to whom? So why aren't the others listed? Argh! --Dweller (talk) 12:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I am tempted do away with the whole section because it's so hard to keep neutral and comprehensive, unfortunately many other articles under WP:UKGEO have notable people sections. The info on Darren Campbell and Diane Modahl could go in the sports section, but I don't think the other stuff could be worked into the article. It would be a shame to lose mention of Joule though. Nev1 (talk) 12:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Go that way. Joule can be incorporated via the Landmarks - check this out. But beware accusations of POV over Campbell and Modahl too. Why not all the other bluelinked sportsmen? The Joule landmark makes it NPOV. And I'd stick a mention of him in the Lead, maybe. --Dweller (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The section has been removed and Joule mentioned with is bust in the landmarks section. I've also included Cambell and Modahl in the sports section as they were members of Sale Harriers. I'll risk the accusations of POV, but I think it can be defenced. Nev1 (talk) 13:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I like that - living in while representing Sale is good stuff. Urg. But then again, what about Sale Sharks players? --Dweller (talk) 13:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A good point, but I can't find any references of Sharks players living in Sale (where's the cricinfo for rugby??). This seems strange until you remember that Sale is the biggest union club in the north west so attracts players from all over. Nev1 (talk) 13:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Yeah, rugby stats are dreadful - nothing really reliable below international level. --Dweller (talk) 13:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Didn't think you meant it when you said you wanted to cover Trafford in bronze stars! That Sale article keeps creeping upwards on my watchlist! You'll get that to FA before I get Chadderton to GA at this rate! --Jza84 | Talk  20:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd settle for covered in green plus signs ;-) I was thinking about taking it to FAC either today or Boxing Day. The prose has undergone some polishing and I think once the governance section bulks up (just a little) it will be ready. Do you think it's ready? I'd appreciate another opinion. The only thing I'm worried about is should I wait until Radcliffe's FAC is closed before nominating or not. Fifth time luck... Nev1 (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Scout Moor
The rewrite looks fine to me but that bit was actually one of Jza's contributions, so it might be an idea to run it past him - although I suspect he's seen it already. Thanks for your help. Richerman (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

KP
Hi,

Well spotted - definately slipped through didn't it. Cheers. &mdash;MDCollins 12:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Brendan Nash
Given you've significantly contributed to the article I thought I would bother you with a query or two. Link 12 doesn't contain the information that it references, the reason being Cricinfo rewrite articles as a day of Test cricket progresses, they use the same link so the earlier information is 'lost'. You can access the page via the Google cached 'thing' but how long will the link last.

Also is it definitely 2006 when he fielded as substitute, there's a Cricinfo image of him as substitute and its dated 5 November 2005 and the scorecard notes also back that up. Ryan Broad was sub fielder in the 2006 Gabba Test, presumably where a 'Queenslander' would be sub. --Jpeeling (talk) 14:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Caches aren't allowed (I was told at an FAC a while ago), but I was able to find another source (BBC). You're right it was 2005, the original cricinfo page did give 2006, but this was probably either because of a confusion about the 2005/06 season or because the writer wasn't too fussed because he knew it'd be changed later. In future I'll hold back on updating articles so that this doesn't happen again. Thanks for pointing it out, Nev1 (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The really weird bit is that Australia were playing the West Indies when Nash was the sub. Nev1 (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello



 * Cheers :D Still a lot of work to do... Nev1 (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Pollard GA
Mmmm. Not really into the GA/FA thing. Happy to support re refs etc if someone else wants to take it on, but I like writing stuff, not bothered about having it marked! It's on my watchlist, so I'll follow whatever anyone else wants to do with it, and chip in where I think I can be helpful. Johnlp (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine and I'll be happy to support. I have Gilbert Parkhouse in my sights as the Christmas project! Sad. But true. Johnlp (talk) 17:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Turnpikes
Good spot on the Radcliffe article. I've ordered a book on Turnpikes in Lancashire, it will probably arrive in the new year at which point I should be able to consider making the turnpikes in GM sandbox a real article. If you wish to add anything, could you ask me first, it's less confusing that way :) Once it's up and running then it's every man for himself :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Bloody hell the canal article was easy to get to FA compared to this :D It's well worth it though, I'd never get such constructive criticism any other way! Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, the canal article didn't get through the first time but I never expected Radcliffe to either - for me, its a proving ground where any problems are exposed. I agree about the Butterworth Bayley comment, however he is mentioned in the canal article so seems to be an important local figure.  I completely disagree with his comments re Transport though, I'm quite happy with that section as it is, excepting the lack of information on buses. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Mark Speight
I could re-add the article to the the nomination page, and see what comments you left at the review. Preferably, I would insist that another user review the article, but, since you did inform me about the nominator's hiatus, I guess I'm still stuck with the article. :) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome and happy editing. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Youngs
This is the full citation:


 * Youngs, Frederic A., Jr.
 * Guide to the Administrative Units of England, Volume II: Northern England
 * Royal Historical Society
 * London
 * 1991
 * ISBN 0 86193 127 0

I probably added the book and/or page numbers, but I certainly never added "English Historical Review". Hope that clears it up....

Lozleader (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)