User talk:Wenslet

Hello
Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia. I notice that so far you edits have been to


 * alter the Template:Lancashire page to reflect a point of view
 * further to add this, Template:Yorkshire, Template:Greater Manchester to various pages which they do not link to, making the articles ugly

Some other people reverted your changes to Template:Lancashire. I've reverted some of inappropriate additions of boxes. I've left those where the article is being linked to.

I realise you may regret the fact that Lancashire has not been shown on maps as including Manchester, Liverpool and Barrow since 1974, but really, on Wikipedia you can only edit articles, and editing Wikipedia will not help one bit editing the reality. (by the way, you neglected that the borough of Manchester is part Cheshire and Stockport is part Lancashire). Morwen - Talk 11:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The yorkshire template should be removed from those articles as well. And so should the Greater Manchester and any other templates.  Which I've been doing, you may note.  I've removed the places that aren't in Lancashire from the template again.  Please do not re-add them.  Morwen - Talk 16:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Obviouisly I am referring, perhaps a little polemically, to Liverpool and Manchester. I have removed Template:Yorkshire from a couple of articles just now.  Whether to have the template on places that actually are relevant is a bit of a style issue, but using the template to push your point of view that Lancashire ought to include Liverpool and Manchester is another matter.  Morwen - Talk 16:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, I should note you about three revert rule, which means you are only allowed to make a revert three times. You've just reached the third, so no more reverts today!


 * As I noted, the fact is the articles are uglified by the boxes and in some cases they are acting as a promotional tool. The latter is of course a more severe problem.  I will remove the rest of the Yorkshire and Lacanshire boxes later.  I encourage you to join me in this quest.  Morwen - Talk 16:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

As User:Mrsteviec notes, there is a (partial) series of templates regarding ceremonial counties. Template:Lincolnshire (which which I note someone has removed North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire from : I will have to revert that) and Template:Cheshire are examples. These are footerboxes, which provide sidelinks between articles (i think i created the first one, and therefore am perhaps to blame for their proliferation). I'm not terribly keen on the county footerboxes, but they are relatively slim and don't overpower stubs too much. There are similar boxes both for districts within regions (Template:East Midlands for example) and also sometimes parishes with districts (Template:Milton Keynes). Sidelinking administrative units is fairly regular practice on Wikipedia - the departments of France do it, the oblasts of Russia do it.

Yorkshire's, you'll note, is different to these: it's more of an "article series" type sidebox. It doesn't contain lists of districts, and it rests at the sides of articles rather than at the bottom. If this and the long version of Template:Lancashire (which occupied half a page on my screen) were both on a page like Mossley this would look particularly odd. I appreciate that Yorkshire and Lancashire are being treated inconsistently here - but that's not really something that can be avoided, but is a consequence of the fact that plain "Yorkshire" has no other meanings now than the historic one. Morwen - Talk 17:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Lancashire template
Hi, have a look at my sandbox for a suggested template for the traditional county. Lancsalot 18:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Lancashire boundaries
This is starting to get ridiculous. It is quite simply incorrect to claim, in 2006, that Barrow-in-Furness, for example, is in Lancashire. Not only is it meaningless, it's also confusing, and applying templates to various articles suggesting they still today have any meaningful relationship with their historical counties is highly misleading. Whether or not user:Wenslet has some particular POV obsessing over traditional county boundaries, we need to keep to current local government settlements, and only refer to historical ones as a matter of passing information. DWaterson 21:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Category talk:Towns in historic Lancashire
Hi. I left a message at Category talk:Towns in historic Lancashire. Hopefully you can explain there. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
Which of the five legitimate types of use for sockpuppets are you claiming? Morwen - Talk 19:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Today you have edited using both Wenslet and Bailrigg aliases, yet you have not yet answered the above question to clarify your need for multiple accounts. As it stands, it appears you are using multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny, something expressly forbidden in WP:SOCK.  If no answer is forthcoming, your other accounts might be blocked as disruptive.  A timely answer would be constructive.  Thanks, Aquilina 18:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Historic Lancashire sidebar
A tag has been placed on Template:Historic Lancashire sidebar requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)