Wikipedia talk:WikiProject North East England/Archive 3

E Upton & Sons
Do any members have information on the notability of lack thereof for E. Upton and Sons? It's being considered at AfD. MikeHobday (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Announcement: The 2009 Structural Changes in Local Government in England: A Taskforce

 * 1) On 1 April, 2009, a number of changes will occur that will affect a number of counties and districts in England, including some which fall within the remit of your project and/or county.
 * 2) The changes will necessitate a large number of changes to various articles on wikipedia.
 * 3) New articles may have to be written, old ones may have to be changed because they will then describe abolished former districts, etc, and numerous changes will have to be made to templates, category names, and articles about individual settlements to update information about local government.
 * 4) Because of this the Uk Geography Project has set up a specific taskforce to identify the changes to be made and then to coordinate the work of preparing for the changes and then implementing them when the changes occur on 1 April.
 * 5) The name of the taskforce is WikiProject UK geography/2009 local government structural changes task force or WP:2009ENGLAND.
 * 6) You are invited to join this taskforce to help us all improve wikipedia in these areas by making sure the information is kept updated, and accurate.

Many thanks. DDStretch   (talk)  21:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC) (on behalf of the taskforce)

In regards to Northumberland County Council, I have already updated the page to reflect the 2009 reorganisation and put a redirect on Northumberland Council to Northumberland County Council (see the Talk:Northumberland County Council. BNC85 (talk) 09:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Cramlington districts (delete Collingwood, and Beaconhill?)
I have added an infobox for Collingwood, Northumberland, but now have doubts as to whether the article should be in. It appears to be a named district of Cramlington New Town, and is not sufficiently notable to be in (?). The same applies to Beaconhill. None of the other districts are included (Mayfield, Southfield, Whitelea, Nelson Village, Shankhouse, Eastfield) although Shankhouse probably qualifies as it was a pit. My preference would be to delete Collingwood, and Beaconhill. Is there anyone with better local knowledge of Cramlington? Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I requested {db} for those two. Beaconhill was rejected, and Collingwood was changed to a #REDIRECT (to Cramlington). I think it is unsatisfactory but will take no further action. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Northumberland articles missing geocoordinate data
I have finished adding infoboxes to villages in Northumberland articles missing geocoordinate data and would now like to start on the non-village articles e.g. buildings etc. Is there an infobox, or similar, that I could use. Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Depends on what the building is notable for. For example, there is Infobox Historic building, Infobox religious building to name just two Pit-yacker (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for that. Those two are unsuitable but they led me on to location map - see sample. I would like to be able to add an image. Also, I said buildings but should have said features e.g. buildings, bridges, lakes, hills etc ... anything that qualifies as an article, but is not a settlement. I will start next week in case anyone else wants to comment. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * you could try the mammoth Geobox (see also Geobox/type NB, as far as I can tell, Geobox doesnt support Location map. Also you can use "United Kingdom Northumberland" instead of England in Location map ;) Pit-yacker (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Also note Infobox building Pit-yacker (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. &mdash; Delievered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Durham has been moved!
Not an April fool unfortunatley. User:Feedyourkoalanow has put a redirect to Durham, North Carolina into the Durham space and displaced Durham (UK) to Durham, UK. Aside from the mess that has been left - including 1. Durham, England treble redirects to Durham, North Carolina via Durham, Durham, England and Durham, 2. a link on Durham to the disambiguation page as been lost and 3. around 1000 articles expect "Durham" to be Durham in England, as far as I can tell this is contrary to the previous consensus that Durham (UK) should be at Durham. I have attempted to patch up the mess but, the software wont allow me to revert fully. Pit-yacker 02:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see the problem, is their anything I can do to help this matter, any other help wold be appreciated. Te ll y a ddi ct  15:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * All fixed now. Shimgray | talk | 15:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a move about to change the Durham page again - see Talk:Durham--Teach46 (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Now the Durham page is up to a vote - if you don't watch it please head over to Talk:Durham and take part.--Teach46 (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Project status?
I was wondering - is this project still alive or has it died?--Teach46 (talk) 09:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It functions, at least, as a noticeboard, though for how many people, I'm not sure. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It was mainly led by User:Qst, who has now retired. However, it's still occassionally used for co-ordination, and it was useful recently with the whole Durham thing. Bob talk 09:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

England at GAC!
Alerting all members that England is undergoing a review for WP:GA status. Things you can help with are listed here. Please help if you can... England expects that every man will do his duty.... :) --Jza84 | Talk  16:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)