User talk:Skinsmoke

Hello, welcome to my talk page. Feel free to post messages for me here, using a new section if relevant (just click the banner at the top of this page). I will normally reply to a message here rather than on your own talk page, so you may wish to temporarily bookmark this page if you expect a reply.

If I've left a message for you on your own talk page I'll have bookmarked that page so you can reply to me there rather than here. This has the advantage of avoiding fragmented discussions.

I've responded to your question at Template talk:Infobox UK place#Police and Fire concerning Brackla. I've also fixed the article for you. If you are editing many {{Infobox UK place}} articles, you might want to view the subtemplate source code at Template:Infobox UK place/local to see the current list of valid parameter values. Your question highlights a possible need for the template code to be reviewed so that other editors are not confused when valid links break the template. — Richardguk (talk) 10:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skinsmoke, today you moved Llanfair-yn-Neubwll to Llanfair-yn-neubwll. Apparently based on one website. If you place the village name into Google only one site out of the first 30 uses Llanfair-yn-neubwll with a small 'n'. Those using the capital includes the Police Force, Anglesey.gov.uk. Yell and from a printed perspective so does the Enyclopedia of Wales. Are there any other reasons for the move? FruitMonkey (talk) 12:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Enaidmawr's comments under Meadgrove above timed at 17:10 on 12 August 2009. As he states, the one website is the definitive source on Welsh spellings, and is used as the main source by Welsh Wikipedia for the correct version. This is a Welsh name, rather than an English transliteration such as Treorchy. It appears that in cases like this, even Welsh speakers get confused, but, by my reading, and backed up by the source quoted, as the meaning of the name is St Mary in the Two Pools, it should definitely be an uncapitalised neubwll. Skinsmoke (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I've asked Enaidmawr to confirm whether the above is correct or not. Skinsmoke (talk) 12:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PPS Especially as he contradicted his own source on this one above! I'd only just noticed that! As he said, even the experts get it wrong occasionally. Let's see what he has to say. If I've got it wrong it can always be undone without too much trouble. Skinsmoke (talk) 12:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. I'll watch this space. FruitMonkey (talk) 14:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just seen your message, Skinsmoke. I can understand the confusion and yes, it does seem I contradicted myself. Canolfan Bedwyr (e-gymraeg.org Search here), established by the University of Wales etc., gives the name with a small 'n'. However, although it's merely my own opinion, I think they've done a blunder here. I assumed that deubwll (dau + pwll) was a purely toponymic reference to a feature in the landscape. In one sense it is, the two pyllau in question being the diminutive lakes, Llyn Dinam and Llyn Penrhyn. However, Deubwll was a medieval 'township' (not a town per se) and so in this case 'Deubwll' can be assumed to be an historical place-name which came to be used to distinguish yet another 'Llanfair' from its many namesakes (blame it on the Normans for finally battering the Welsh church into submission to Rome and spreading Marianism!). That being the case, there is a valid argument for the capital 'D' (mutated to 'N'), for obvious reasons and according to standard practice in Welsh, rather than a small 'd' (mutated to 'n')) which would be correct if it were just a reference to the two lakes (or any other general feature of the landscape). The place-name section of Atlas Môn agrees; somewhat ironic that it was written by the late Prof. Melville Richards whose database of historical place-names was placed at the disposal of Canolfan Bedwyr when the project was set up, if I recall rightly... So I eat humble pie and suggest that Canolfan Bedwyr do the same! Bit long-winded, but I hope that helps. Enaidmawr (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, am I correct in thinking you are saying it should probably be Llanfair-yn-Neubwll after all? Skinsmoke (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to put too fine a point on it, yes! Enaidmawr (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have also emailed Canolfan Bedwyr asking for clarification and referring them to this discussion. Skinsmoke (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should be interesting to hear what they have to say. If Deubwll does refer to the township then I can't see how it can be spelled with a small 'n'. Medieval townships could cover a fair area, of course, usually consisting of scattered farms and dwellings, so the church would only have to be on that parcel of land for it to termed 'yn Neubwll' (a similar example: Llanfair-yng-Nghornwy - an Anglesey parish - correctly spelled thus by Canolfan Bedwyr as Cornwy is a place-name). Enaidmawr (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At last, a reply from Canolfan Bedwyr:-

"Thanks for drawing attention to the matter of the correct spelling of Llanfair-yn-Neubwll, and apologies for the delay in replying.

The form 'Llanfair-yn-neubwll' is the one listed in A Gazetteer of Welsh Place-Names (University of Wales Press (1967 / 1996), one of the standard reference works relating to Welsh place-name orthography. However, in this instance they (and we) appear to have slipped. As mentioned in the Wikipedia discussion, Deubwll was a township, so Llanfair-yn-Neubwll would be the preferred spelling (cf. Betws-yn-Rhos, Llanfair-ym-Muallt and so on).

We'll update the reference on the Enwau Cymru site at the earliest opportunity.

All the best,

Owain Davies (on behalf of Enwau Cymru)."

Will get an administrator to put the article back where it belongs. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, much work for such a small letter. Thanks for investigating. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or a big letter, even! At least it proves one thing conclusively: Wikipedia changes the world (or at least one small village on a Welsh island)! Skinsmoke (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Canolfan Bedwyr for confirming this and promising to change the spelling @Enwau Cymru. Diolch, Owain, os wyt ti'n darllen hyn. Reinforces my already considerable respect for the late Melville Richards. And it's nice to see Wikipedia "changing [one small corner of] the world" correctly (for once - lest we get too smug!). Diolch i ti hefyd, Skinsmoke. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there Skinsmoke,

I noticed you're work at Wikimedia Commons, particularly the much needed organisation and reorganisation of the Greater Manchester category. However, I raised a question here about making some further changes.

Do you plan to roll out the same format you introduced for the Stockport borough, for the remaining districts (ie do you have plans to have a "Met. Brg. of Oldham" category within which Oldham, Chadderton, Royton etc sit?). If so, please will you give me a nudge and I'll be happy to assist. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jza. It was primarily your original request for help that got me started on Stockport (plus a bit of a problem over in Wirral that I agreed, foolishly, to help out on!}. I don't think it's the most important thing in the world, but if someone is looking for images from, say the Metropolitan Borough of Stockport, they should really be able to access the whole lot of them, wherever they may be lurking (and some were lurking in some very strange places). I think what I've started to roll out there helps, without preventing someone who just wants images of Cheadle having to wade through piles of stuff they're not interested in. It's not my top priority, but it's something I've been having a bash at when I'm bored and don't want to have to think too much. By all means have a go at Metro Oldham - it won't do any harm for anyone who likes the present system, but it does bring in an additional layer that some may find useful. For example, anyone searching Towns and Villages in Greater Manchester will still be able to get to the images the old way. Skinsmoke (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with this. :)

I'll probably have a bash at this at some point this evening - it's a pretty collossal task, and a bot has created loads of unwanted categories that need deleting/merging too! I'm disappointed though that Geograph and Flickr haven't got more shots of the region in the snow - I have been checking for them so as to add them to commons, but not much luck. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I'd hold off on deleting the unwanted categories for a while. They have been created, I understand, ready for about 250,000 images about to be uploaded from Geograph, which is due to happen shortly. After that initial run, I think it's intended to do further runs until everything from Geograph UK and Geograph Ireland is added to Commons, followed by Geograph Deutschland. As it's all being done automatically, deleting the categories may cause a few problems. If you want to find out more, contact User:Multichill on Commons. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS Didn't really get out with the camera myself in the snow as I've been full of a cold since before Christmas, but I did venture out at a friend's and took a couple - even Ridge Hill was looking quite presentable in the winter sunshine! Must get them uploaded. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job there, I thought you were wrong on Ederyn but turns out not (although its a pity that the Saint's spelling is not maintained Just wondering though - when I grew up in North Wales (and spent every summer at Llangwnadl), no one ever called it a peninsular it was always just the Llŷn I wonder if we should rename? --Snowded ^TALK 09:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. It's nice to be appreciated occasionally instead of always getting up someone's nose! I think Edeyrn became Edern in 1955, at the same time that Nefyn changed its spelling. Funnily enough, I had only this morning suggested the same to Enaidmawr about moving to Llŷn. I think the Llŷn Peninsula tag came from the academic geographers among us, but I really don't see why the Peninsula is necessary, or even desirable. Probably the same bunch that landed us with Outer Hebrides! I would even suggest the same applies to Gower Peninsula. Incidentally, I've moved on to filling in some of the red links for the communities and villages on Llŷn Peninsula, getting stubs created, and then intend to do something about the dreadful Settlements section, which is nothing more than a pretty poor list. Finally, thanks for your support on the Cardiganshire merge to Ceredigion. I intend to leave it a few days to see if there's any more opposition: I had half expected howls of anguish from the "Historic Counties" brigade, but it doesn't seem to be materialising. If not, may even make an attempt to get Merionethshire merged into Meirionnydd! Skinsmoke (talk) 09:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should at least use Gŵyr even if we don't drop the Peninsular, but agree on that. If Enaidmawr is agreed maybe its time to propose as there is citation support I think (will have to look that up. Let me know if you need support withe those who haven't realised that Wye is the border not the Usk --Snowded ^TALK 09:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I've met people from Newport. As an Englishman, I can say you're welcome to them! ;-) Skinsmoke (talk) 10:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is illogical to use the modern spelling Ceredigion in a list of counties from the 17th century where all the other counties use their contemporary 17th century names. RGCorris (talk) 15:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on your talk page. Please leave any response there, so that it is not necessary to switch back and forth between talk pages to follow a discussion. Skinsmoke (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, please stop bypassing the redirects - see WP:NOTBROKEN and User_talk:Lozleader#.22Cleaning_up.22_redirects. Some of your recent edits have just repeated the same problem. Bencherlite^Talk 23:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As with User:Lozleader, new to me: I had also been told in the past that it is preferable to bypass the redirect in such cases, and in this particular merge the only person who registered an objection to the move demanded that the links be redirected, so I got on with it. It's certainly a lot less work, though there are numerous instances (about 50 per cent), where the link was to the wrong name anyway. Skinsmoke (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. Perhaps you could link the Welsh guidelines for me at some stage; I can't immediately find them. Not that I particularly have an axe to grind in either direction of this argument, but I think you're not quoting the applicable guidance in full. Browsing around, I found WP:PLACE (a universal, not one-country, guideline), which says (with emphasis added):

1. The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name, or one of them; but not always. If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used. ...
2. The lead ...
3. The contents (this applies to all articles using the name in question): The same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article. Exceptions are allowed only if there is a widely accepted historic English name for a specific historical context. In cases when a widely accepted historic English name is used, it should be followed by the modern English name in parentheses on the first occurrence of the name in applicable sections of the article in the format: "historical name (modern name)."

So as I read it, it is permitted by WP:PLACE to say that Gilbertson, etc, were "born in Cardiganshire (now known as Ceredigion)" since that would be the widely-accepted historical English name for the county. I don't actually care enough about this to follow your contributions around, but perhaps this might give you something to think about. Bencherlite^Talk 01:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think that would be acceptable under that guideline, yes. However, I would be wary of trying to use that as an argument to overturn the more local guideline, as there is always the danger of running into arguments about national varieties of English. That guideline refers specifically to the problems of Mumbai and Nanjing (which then brings in also the problem of transliteration), but there are many other examples. Wikipedia, for example, follows Canadian useage and shies away from terms like Eskimo, which would be totally unnacceptable in modern Canadian useage, even though it may still be acceptable in many parts of the English speaking world.

I think the point here is that anyone looking up the place on a map would be likely to find it in Ceredigion, not Cardiganshire. In any case, is the historical period particularly relevant to where the place is, in these cases? If someone were, for example, appointed High Sheriff in 1763, it would be of Cardiganshire, as that was the official title. Similarly, somebody elected to parliament in 1911 would be for Cardiganshire, as that was the official name of the constituency. Both have historical relevance. However, a mere geographic descriptor is surely more useful if it describes where the place is now. We would refer to Stonehenge being an ancient monument in Wiltshire, but I'm damned certain that the people who built it didn't use that term. Similarly, the Romans built a villa at Fishbourne in West Sussex, long before the South Saxons invaded our shores. In those cases, the historical period isn't particularly relevant to determining where the feature is located.

It surely boils down to using a bit of common sense. The Battle of Stalingrad is so deeply entrenched in the English language that it would be foolish to refer to it as the Battle of Volgograd. But it would be equally foolish not to mention in the article that it occurred in and around Volgograd, even though the city was then known as Stalingrad.

Like you, I'm struggling to find the Welsh policy guideline (it took me an hour to find the UK one!), and it's getting late. I'll see if I can find the relevant section tomorrow. The problem with these things is nobody ever adds them to the Naming Conventions, they then get archived, so you finish up having to trawl through pages of stuff. However, as I recall, the gist of it is that the changes in Wales are not so much a change of name; rather a change of spelling, and that we wouldn't, just because we were writing about Edward I, write the rest of the article in the English used during his time, and so should not do so for place names. I suppose that is not all that different from some of the examples above, and is akin to writing that the Vikings developed a settlement at York, even though they would have called it Jorvik. Going back to Edward I again, he took over and rebuilt the castle at Criccieth. Well, he didn't in a historical context, but if we said he took over and rebuilt the castle at Krukeith nobody would have a clue what we were talking about. Skinsmoke (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Until you can find and quote the Welsh policy guideline, could you refrain from eliminating any more references to the historic county names. If you were editing an article about the Teutonic Knights in Konigsberg, would you insist on referring to the town as Kaliningrad ? Or would you refer to Ian Smith as the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe in the 1960s ? Historic references should retain the contemporary name, linked to the modern name where appropriate. RGCorris (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In both the cases you refer to the answer is no, as historical context is significant to which name is used. This was explained perfectly clearly in the paragraphs dated 02:09 on 19 January 2010 above. Where the name is merely a geographic locator, it is more helpful to the reader to be able to find the place on a map. If you can give me an example where I have departed from that rule, I will be happy to hold my hands up and confess (there may, possibly, be the odd one that I got wrong). It is worth noting that you are not being consistent on this: Aberystwyth, for example, is never spelled on these biographical articles as Aberystwith, which was the spelling used at that time; nor is Aberaeron spelled as Aberaryron, which again was the spelling used at the time. There was, however, one ludicrous example that decribed someone being born at Aberteifi in Cardiganshire. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to you locating the Welsh policy guideline. I would be interested to know when the spelling Aberaryron was used ! RGCorris (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Until 1 November 1966 (see A Vision of Britain Through Time). You could also look at the Imperial Gazeteer of England and Wales 1870-1872, which states:-

"ABERAYRON, a small seaport town and a district in Cardigan. The town stands in the parishes of Henfynyw, and Llanddewi-Aberarth, at the mouth of the Ayron river, 16 miles SSW of Aberystwith, and 13 miles NW of Lampeter r. station. It has two piers, enclosing a small harbour, and owns about 40 vessels. It was long a retired village, but has become a market-town and an esteemed watering-place."

That quote also shows the former spelling of Aberystwyth. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aberayron, certainly. But Aberaryron ? RGCorris (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A typo - get over it! Skinsmoke (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you used the 2001 census as the source, rather than the estimate from the council. I understad that there will be greater uncertainty in the estimate, but it is more recent. Jolly Ω Janner 16:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jolly. Two main reasons. Firstly, the 2001 census figure is used for almost all other settlements in the United Kingdom, and therefore enables comparisons using the same baseline. Secondly, because it is an exact figure (well, as near as an exact figure as we are ever going to get), whereas the estimated figure is just that: a guess, and local authority estimates are notoriously inaccurate as they tend to be based on planning permissions granted, rather than buildings constructed. If there had been a significant change I would have quoted both, but I didn't really think an increase of 4.4 per cent was all that noteworthy. Of course, we will know the truth in a couple of years when the 2011 census figures are released. Skinsmoke (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good reasoning. Thank you for your response. Jolly Ω Janner 16:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just a comment about changing Cornwall Council to Cornwall. If the field in the infobox is for the unitary authority, then a link to Cornwall Council is correct. DuncanHill (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the policy we adopt elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Where the link is to indicate the geography, we link to the local authority area, not to the council. For example, Cheadle is linked to Metropolitan Borough of Stockport, not to Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council; Horsforth to City of Leeds, not to Leeds City Council; Eye to Peterborough, not to Peterborough City Council; Pwllheli to Gwynedd, not to Gwynedd Council. Indeed, in the vast majority of the country, Placename Council has been merged into Placename, as in West Berkshire, Portsmouth, Medway, Cheshire East and East Riding of Yorkshire. The original intention of this field was to link to the local authority area, not to a page detailing the political control of that area, and it may be that confusion has arisen by the adoption of the shorthand term Unitary authority as Unitary authority area caused problems in the layout of the Infobox. Skinsmoke (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So the infobox for a civil parish should have no link to the authority it lies in? That seems to me to make the infobox less useful to readers. Also, by linking to Cornwall in both the unitary authority and the ceremonial county fields gives the false impression that the two are coterminous - they are not, as the Isles of Scilly have had a sui generis authority of their own for many years. Your method requires adding text to the article to make clear what authority a parish lies within, which strikes me as much clumsier and less readable than putting the information in the infobox. DuncanHill (talk) 14:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are not talking about my method, but the method that is generally in use throughout the United Kingdom. The principal was that the Infobox in a civil parish should have a link to the local government area in which it was located, not the governing body of that area, just as it has a link to the ceremonial county. Before the most recent mad dash to local government centralisation, this was never an issue: there were very few instances where the shire district and shire district council had separate pages; and the ceremonial county field never linked to a county council, only to a county. Nor has it proven a problem in the unitary authorities established up to this latest round, nor in the Welsh principal areas: the counties and county boroughs. The link is always to the local government area. I have yet to see any reason given why this should be changed for the 2008 unitaries, which would then be treated differently to any other local government area in the country. Ultimately, I think you have to ask yourself, what is the general reader expecting to find when following the link. Do they expect to find an article about the area, its population, traditions, history, people, language; or do they expect to find an article detailing how many seats were won or lost by the United Kingdom Independence Party and who had a row about a council logo? I accept that there are difficulties where the unitary authority adopts the name of the ceremonial county, even though it does not cover the same area, but Cornwall is not alone in this. Indeed, Cornwall is perhaps the county (nation?) with the least difference: in the East Riding of Yorkshire the difference is the mighty city of Kingston upon Hull! Skinsmoke (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS I'll be offline for a few hours, but will catch up on any reply later tonight. Skinsmoke (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think a reader expects a link to the authority when the link is so labelled as being to the authority. The unitary authority in this case is Cornwall Council - Cornwall is not a unitary authority. I think they would expect to find out about the history, traditions etc in the ceremonial county link, conveniently located just below the unitary authority link. DuncanHill (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than us argue it out here, I've asked what other editors think we should be linking to at Template talk:Infobox UK place. Incidentally, legally Cornwall is the unitary authority. Cornwall Council is the governing body of the unitary authority. And yes, there are two different things: Cornwall, the unitary authority and Cornwall the ceremonial county. The same anomaly exists in Durham, East Riding of Yorkshire, Shropshire and Wiltshire. Skinsmoke (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the SI says that "Cornwall Council" is the authority, not "Cornwall". DuncanHill (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the Statutory Instrument doesn't use the term Unitary Authority at all and refers to Cornwall Council being a local government authority and the sole principal authority for Cornwall. As far as legislation is concerned, Cornwall is a District:-

"For the purposes of enactments relating to local government, there shall be a new district, whose area shall be co-terminous with that of Cornwall; and the name of that new district shall be Cornwall."

Unitary Authority is the term we use on Wikipedia to describe those Districts which are not Shire Districts or Metropolitan Districts, and which exercise the functions of both a County and a District, but it has no legal meaning whatever in terms of English local government. Skinsmoke (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which doesn't change my point that the authority is Cornwall Council, not Cornwall. Nor does it address the difference between the Lord Lieutenancy area ("Ceremonial County") and the administrative area ("Cornwall").The SI says "Cornwall" but does not include the Isles of Scilly (rightly, they've never, afaik, been adminstered as part of the County of Cornwall). I think the problem is that the infobox as used is not appropriate for indicating either the administrative or the historical and geographical context. It tries and fails to do both. There should be an administrative section, with links to councils, constituencies, regions etc, and a geographical section with links to areas e.g. historical, ceremonial counties. DuncanHill (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful not to assume too much into the wording of the legislation. Such legislation uses, when it's drafted correctly, very tightly defined phrases. The phrase local government authority has been defined in previous legislation, as has principal authority. So, incidentally, has Cornwall in the sense that it is used in the Statutory Instrument, though there is another definition in the legislation that established ceremonial counties, as we call them on Wikipedia, or lieutenancies as they are called in the legislation. Legislation, however, does not define the language we use on Wikipedia, where we are often a hell of a lot less precise, though on occasions we can be downright pedantic!

I think you are correct when you say that the problem is the UK Infobox itself (and probably the wording we use on it as well). As you have undoubtedly noticed, this and the discussion on "Distance to Dublin" have broadened out into a much wider discussion, involving the possibility of replacing UK Infobox and Ireland Infobox with a new Infobox to be used for both countries, and the idea of specifically linking to an article on the Council is something that could well be considered there (but remember, very few local government areas have a separate article for the Council; they often redirect to, or have been merged into, the article on the area). I would tend to shy away from any mention of historical counties if I was you: it's a subject which is fraught with undercurrents and agendas, not to mention complications in defining what boundary changes are covered or aren't! Skinsmoke (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you've already declared and acted upon a consensus to go your way, I'm out of the discussion and removing this page from my watchlist. DuncanHill (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As yours was the only alternate view, I would consider that to be a consensus. You were in a minority of one. Skinsmoke (talk) 02:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have linked some news articles to show use of Indian English spellings, in accordance to your comments.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. It is by no means within my field of knowledge, but it certainly strengthens your case for a move. Skinsmoke (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded here Talk:Scapegoat#Requested_move --Penbat (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Skinsmoke. You have new messages at Talk:Unilateral_Declaration_of_Independence_(Rhodesia)#Requested_move.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Skinsmoke. You have new messages at Talk:Northern cisco.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Skinsmoke. You have new messages at Talk:Pfärrit.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You have recently participated in a discussion about moving Sarah Brown (spouse). The request has been modified so please revisit it here for further discussion if you care. — AjaxSmack 02:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skinsmoke, I think you raised some very valid issues with the move of Bolsa de Comercio de Santiago. I've collected a variety of sources to answer your concerns; let me know if there's anything else that has to be done for you to reconsider your opposition.Erudy (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving your comments at Talk:Daśāvatāra#Requested_move. As per the consensus: The result of the proposal was move to nondiacritic for the article. Several alternatives have been presented for this particular article (Dashavatara, Dasavatara, Dashavatar) so please help pick an appropriate one. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used to have a "Pricilla" that worked for me. Drove me nuts at payroll time. I'm very suspicious of the facebook page. Out of 4170 Google hits, two are for the spelling "Priscilla and Kurt" and 4168 are for "Pricilla and Kurt". The Facebook page is the only place that uses the "Priscilla" spelling, so I suspect forgery. I've reverted you for now. If you find something to make it look like I got it wrong, go ahead and correct me.—Kww(talk) 14:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My source is the official CD issued by the Malta PBS of the contest entrants, backed up by The Official Website of the Eurovision Song Contest : Maltese Finalists Announced Skinsmoke (talk) 21:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, it's the "&". Compare http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Pricilla+and+Kurt%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t to http://www.google.com/search?q="Priscilla+%26+Kurt"&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t —Kww(talk) 21:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you, and have already reverted myself.—Kww(talk) 22:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's any help, I think the original error occurred in the initial press release issued by Malta PBS announcing the contestants and songs. It had a couple of spelling mistakes, both of which have been circulated widely on the web (as these things are). Skinsmoke (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Skinsmoke, about a year ago you contributed to a debate I started on naming conventions for places in Wales. At the time, I think we agreed that 'regional' descriptors weren't generally useful when describing Welsh towns. However, User:Welshleprechaun has made an edit on Swansea Cork ferry which I believe opens the issue up again.[1] I'd welcome your input in the discussion at Talk:Swansea Cork ferry so that we can nail this down one way or the other.--Pondle (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for kindly reminding me of something I read some time ago; I thought that using also Italian names could be helpful since in the external links I added (from important newspapers), the names of the villages are written only in Italian. I'll save the section you found for me.--Broletto (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Must admit, I think we got the convention wrong, but you can't please everyone all the time... Skinsmoke (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please not edit my archive as you did here as the chances are I might miss the comment so please use my talk page best Mo ainm~Talk 10:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I had forgotten I had gone into the Archive, and thought I was still on your Talk page. It was getting late! Of course, if I had realised, I would have opened a new section on the Talk page. Skinsmoke (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Skinsmoke. You have new messages at Mo ainm's talk page.
Message added 16:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Mo ainm~Talk 16:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just letting you know out of courtesy that I've created this navbox today, and will be adding it to your list page and to at least some of the relevant parishes, starting with the Darlington section. Please let me know if there are any initial problems, so that I can put it right. Of course I'll leave the updates to you, should you wish to do it.--Storye book (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, which is appreciated. However, it isn't my list page - we don't really "own" things on Wikipedia (though we may pay particular attention to certain pages). Good template. Think the note at the bottom about North Yorkshire needs a bit of clarification (we know it refers to Stockton on Tees, but the average reader probably won't). It might be an idea to change the layout slightly. Instead of Unparished and Parished, why not have Towns, Parishes and Unparished Areas (Cities for the few counties that have parishes holding city status, as well)? For the unparished areas, I would be inclined to just show, for example, Consett, rather than Consett Urban District. I am in the (rather slow) process of revamping the List of civil parishes in... pages, so you may like to take a look at List of civil parishes in Cheshire for the new look, which appears to have been generally favourably received. I have treated the unparished areas slightly differently, incorporating them into the main list and, where a former area has been partly parished, using more understandable unparished area definitions (Neston (parished), Burton (unparished) and Willaston (unparished) are an example for the former Neston Urban District). The metropolitan counties are all done, and I'm working through the north of England at the moment (well, to be honest, I've been stuck part way through Lancashire for a couple of months, but I will get back to it! see User:Skinsmoke/Sandbox/Civil parishes/Lancashire). Skinsmoke (talk) 13:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eek. Thanks for your very comprehensive reply. Yes I know it's not really yours; I was just acknowledging that you edit it. I'm not a geographer, though, and my worry is that although I'm willing to have a go at readjusting it according to your suggestions, I fear I could make it worse by making mistakes. This template, as you will have noticed, is a straight copy of the list article, because I didn't trust myself to make new decisions. The main issue is that I'm Kentish, living in Yorks, so I don't really have the feel of Durham. I had been writing articles about a few villages/hamlets near Darlington, and wanted to make it a bit more obvious which were parishes and which weren't. Another problem is that this was to be my last major task before clearing my Wiki desk before the exam season - so if I add serious errors by guessing which are towns and which are parishes, I might not be around to quickly pick up complaints. If it's OK with you, I'll continue adding the template to relevant parishes as far as I can, then I'll change just the elements which I feel I can do without too much risk of error. I hope that's OK?--Storye book (talk) 13:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's OK. If (no, when) I ever get round to Durham I may have a look at the template and see what I can do with it, if you don't mind. I may even get round to copying the idea for the counties where I've already revamped the pages, but that's some time off! Don't worry too much about the towns — the notations that have been added appear pretty reliable. I've been checking them on the counties I've revamped, and they seem to be correct, so I would assume Durham is right too. Good luck with the exams — you should be revising, not wasting your life away on Wikipedia (hehe)! Skinsmoke (talk) 13:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've done all I can now on this template, unless anyone alerts me to other errors. It's now on every appropriate article, as far as I know. I've followed your original advice as far as I can. I've created the subheadings as suggested, but I'm not sure whether Headland and Preston on Tees are towns in their own right, or just part of other towns; I listed them as towns to see if anyone else unlists them or not. I clarified the note about Stockton on Tees borough at the bottom, but it needs checking. As for the exams: well for my sins I get to be the examiner these days, so it's less a matter of revising than making space for all the piles of paper that come in the door.--Storye book (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I've checked on the two parishes you weren't sure of. Headland is a town (defined very simply by whether the parish council has declared itself to be a town!); Preston on Tees isn't. I've corrected the template for you. Good luck with the marking then, and hope you find a couple of howlers to liven it up! My favourite, which had my geography teacher in hysterics as she was marking mock O levels, was "The lake is surrounded by carniverous trees". Skinsmoke (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Just had a look at your User Page, and then your photos, and realised I've used at least one of them on List of civil parishes in West Yorkshire! Skinsmoke (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting the template. Couldn't find any of my photos on the West Yorkshire page, but maybe it was a Geograph one that I uploaded and then forgot about. Re the exams: I mark several subjects including English GCSE. The best questions to mark are the creative writing questions where the candidates get a chance to show a sense of humour. One year they had the choice of writing an advert for a car, aimed at a young male audience. The candidates were from schools across the UK, but most of them over-emphasized the cupholders - obviously tongue in cheek. It was hilarious. There hasn't been such a good exam question since.--Storye book (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine! The pic is used to illustrate Baildon, by the way. Skinsmoke (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the museum. Nice to know it's being used.--Storye book (talk) 12:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Los Angeles which you may be interested in. It is a consolidated discussion related to neighborhood moves discussed at Talk:Bunker Hill, Los Angeles, California, Talk:Angelino Heights, Los Angeles, Talk:Warner Center, Los Angeles, and other places. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you, Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 17:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Have added my twopennyworth! Skinsmoke (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At Talk:MS Caribbean Princess#Requested move, you had listed oppose and gave the naming convention as a reason. Are you refering to WP:NC-SHIPS? If so, can you help clarify what part of the guideline you are using? The way I read it "A ship not known by a prefix should appear under its name only, if that is unambiguous". As the ship builder website, the cruise line website, and all but one ref in the article all seem to omit the prefix - it seems that this does fall into the category of a ship not known by its prefix. If you're using a different line in that guideline, can you help point it out, because I may be overlooking it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 21:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, have you got a link to this discussion? If it was well-attended and came to a clear consensus, there would be no point rehashing it. Knepflerle (talk) 11:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It took some searching, but I have found the discussion that resulted in the change at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2009/August. And it was, indeed, about a year ago! There were only about seven contributors, but it was extremely wide ranging and most contributors changed their positions during the discussion to reach a consensus. It was actually a fairly good example of how such discussions should work on Wikipedia (for once!). Skinsmoke (talk) 12:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Having read that, there's a good case for moving all the relevant articles. It's a lot of articles, but is should be straightforward to write a script for this, so it's almost certainly worth putting a request in at WP:BOTREQ. Knepflerle (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd actually made a start this afternoon, though only managed about three provinces (only about 97 to go!). Not had any experience of bot requests – do you want to go ahead and put in a request? I've found articles at Placename, Italy; Placename, Province Code; Placename, Municipality; and Placename, Province so far. Skinsmoke (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting you're approaching it from a usage angle, 'cuz that's different than the way I was approaching it. I was approaching it on primarily a general naming conventions argument, with the additional argument that it was moved from O'Hare International Airport to Chicago O'Hare International Airport by one guy with no discussion. I did go to Google and Google Scholar to see which one was more hit; hopefully they'll be enough for you to support my argument Purplebackpack89 15:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I almost certainly don't disagree with you on this one, and a simple Google search is probably enough to convince me in this case. There isn't usually a difference between the two angles, except where disambiguation comes into play, as the naming conventions generally state that we should use the most common version used in English. Skinsmoke (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be a bugaboo, but could you place your above comments on the O'Hare talk page? :-D Thanks, Purplebackpack89 22:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done better than that. You now have a pretty convincing case. Well done! Skinsmoke (talk) 07:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You recently participated in a move request at Talk:Ulster Scots people. The rationale for the move was not presented in the nomination but had been previously discussed on the talk page. If you care, please reply to my comment or to the rationale in general. Thanks. — AjaxSmack 03:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Skinsmoke (talk) 15:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey—I replied to you on my talk page. Discussion is underway at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vietnam#Diacritics, as you've seen. Is there a specific way we need to inform others that this is taking place? --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 02:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Replied on your Talk page. Skinsmoke (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've cleaned up the "In a nutshell" section in the diacritics discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vietnam#Diacritics. When you get the chance, please indicate your support or opposition to each consensus point to allow us to determine which points have the most support. I've also added a note to the effect that, for now, these points do not constitute a formal proposal, but just indicate where we're at in our discussion. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 14:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about: Economic relations between mainland China and Africa

• Does mainland sound like a loaded term, is it too "forky", suggesting Taiwan is not really a part of China? ---*Would the more precise but perhaps overspecific (and longer) Economic relations between the People's Republic of China and Africa be better?
• There was also one comment preferring 'involvement' to 'relations'. I'm also considering 'interaction', which would leave: Economic interaction between the People's Republic of China and Africa

The talk page is quiet, and there's only one other person opposed to the name switch (out of 5 votes). Just trying to put down some consensus. Ocaasi (talk) 01:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to be very careful with this one. There has been an enormous amount of edit warring in the past over the use of the term China, which eventually resulted in a consensus being reached. This is set out at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese), which states:

Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. Text should treat the Republic of China as a sovereign state with equal status with the People's Republic of China. Text should not take a position on whether they are considered separate nations. Text should not imply that Taiwan is either a part of China or not a part of China. Text should not imply that Taiwan is a part of the People's Republic of China. Text should not imply that mainland China, Hong Kong, and/or Macau are part of the Republic of China. As a general rule of thumb, the official political terms "People's Republic of China" or "PRC" and "Republic of China" or "ROC" should be used in political contexts (that is, to describe the existing governments or regimes) rather than the imprecise and politically charged terms "China" and "Taiwan." For example, "Hu Jintao is the President of the People's Republic of China" is preferred over "Hu Jintao is the President of China." Likewise, one should write "one must be an ROC citizen to vote in the ROC presidential election" as opposed to "one must be a Taiwanese citizen to vote in the Taiwanese presidential election."

The article is clearly about the People's Republic of China's relations with Africa. The Republic of China (Taiwan) barely gets a mention. It is for that reason I think we have to use the formal term, lengthy though it may be. It's not, incidentally, that it is "too forky" to suggest that "Taiwan is not really a part of China"; more that it violates our overriding principle of taking a neutral point of view. And you can be sure it would be contested by some readers in both Chinas!

On your other point, I don't really have a problem with the use of relations. To me, that is the normal word we would use in English. Skinsmoke (talk) 01:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read through the debates on naming and see how contentious it became. I think Economic relations between the People's Republic of China and Africa will be better (at least my choice). I didn't mean to get into the geopolitical stuff, anyway. Thanks for the link/info. Ocaasi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

More than happy with that. I could see mega problems arising! Skinsmoke (talk) 09:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• While this move request was still in the uncontroversials list, I moved Katyn (disambiguation) to Katyn. In Katyn (disambiguation) I put the link to Katyn massacre at the top of the list. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• In User talk:Anthony Appleyard I have amalgamated the two User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Katyn sections. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• (Your user talk page has got very long; you should archive the older messages. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

One day, when I've got enough time to sus how to do it, I'll get round to it. Skinsmoke (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done it wasn't as hard as I thought! Skinsmoke (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Perhaps you can help me with this comment. I'm not sure what it means or how to fix it...yikes! It's a banner on the Tiger Dunlop page:

This article uses bare URLs in its references. Please use proper citations containing each referenced work's title, author, date, and source, so that the article remains verifiable in the future Thanks in advance for your time.CJ_WeißSchäfer 16:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CJ3370 (talk • contribs)

No problem. I've done the first one for you, to give you an idea how we show a citation on Wikipedia. Done this way, in the References you see the actual name and subject of the website referred to, rather than the Internet address. This means that, if it subsequently changes to another website (for example, if the owner changes Internet Service Provider), and the link becomes a dead one, it is easy to search to see if the page still exists elsewhere on the Internet, so that the citation can be updated. You should also show the date that you accessed the site, to give an indication of how recently the link has been checked.

There are various ways of showing the link in a citation, and none is right or wrong. I always prefer the style I have shown, as it is very easy and simple to do, but there is a template you can use (I've never really got my head round it, as I think it looks unnecessarily confusing to the editor adding it). More information is at Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, Wikipedia:Citing sources, Help:Citations quick reference and Wikipedia:Citation templates. You may also find Help:Footnotes useful.

Hope this is some help to you. If you've any more questions, don't hesitate to ask. If I know the answer, I'll be happy to provide it; if not I'll find somewhere or someone that can help.

Once you've sorted out the citations, don't forget to remove the warning banner from the top of the page, marking the action history Citation style fixed  Done, or something similar. Skinsmoke (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another question Thanks so much for the example. That was what I needed to get started. I think I've fixed the urls, but there doesn't appear to be a way to clear the banner. Is that a user privilege that I don't have as a newbee? CJ_WeißSchäfer 02:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CJ3370 (talk • contribs)

If you open the edit page, the second line shows {{bare links}}. Just delete it. I've also introduced you to a new trick on the page. Where you have more than one citation from the same source, just lump them all under a single citation. To do this, chose a suitable ref name (I've chosen "heron"). The first citation you show as normal, except that instead of the opening <ref>, you put <ref name="heron">. For every subsequent citation, instead of having to put the full citation in, you just put <ref name="heron"/>. Not only does that make your life easier, but it also links everything together in the References section. I've done it for the Herontrips references for you, so you can see what it looks like. Skinsmoke (talk) 03:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the heads up....it wasn't quite so clear from the website where I copied the map...yes it is a nice one. But another will do as well and not get me into trouble. I will have a look at the site you recommend and see if I can come up with something suitable. CJ_WeißSchäfer 14:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CJ3370 (talk • contribs)

I mean War in Afghanistan (disambiguation) → War in Afghanistan. Personally I think it should be called either Afghanistan War or Afghan War. You'll notice that they currently redirect to War in Afghanistan. That preposition in is an abuse of language. In the past it was Korea War, Vietnam War, Falklands War... but in these modern days it is War "in" Iraq, War "in" Afghanistan. This kind politically correct grammar euphemism is quite irksome. But language evolves, and people tend not to say "excavation instrument" when they can say "spade", so you can bet it will be dropped in the future. If you're into that kind of things you can read (or re-read) Orwell's essay on politics and the english language. ^walk victor falk ^talk 04:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I tend to call a spade a shovel. Skinsmoke (talk) 05:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:) ^walk victor falk ^talk 05:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I noticed you moved the page Miranda, Italy to Miranda, Liguria. Now I moved it to Miranda, Molise because it isn't in region Liguria, but in Molise (as you can see in the map, they are very far from each other). Best regards, Von Vikken (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: same thing for Pizzone, Liguria, moved to Pizzone, Molise. -- Von Vikken (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! I've been working through a whole pile of these and the previous province I'd been dealing with was in Liguria. Afraid the Italian regions were begining to swim before my eyes. Thanks for sorting that out. I'll go into the disambiguation pages and redirects and put those right too! Skinsmoke (talk) 23:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Feel free to ask me everything about Italy, I'll help you if I can! Bye! -- Von Vikken (talk) 13:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Skinsmoke

sorry to disturb you, I am writing about this redirect. Borgo is one of the original 14 historic quarters (rioni) of Rome. All over Italy there are hundreds, if not thousands, quarters and frazioni which bear the same name. You can google a little bit to discover it. Just to make an example of a town which I know well, the ancient part of Nocera Umbra, is called il Borgo. This means that this redirect is - at the best - ambiguous ,and therefore senseless. Moreover, a rione is a part of a city (Rome), not of a region (Latium), therefore it should be superordinated to the city. If we want really to be precise, then we should rename the article to Rione Borgo (Rome), and then rename accordingly all the other Rioni. I hope you got my point. Cheers from the Eternal City, Alex2006 (talk) 11:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about disturbing me. On Wikipedia we determine disambiguation terms by what other articles we have; not by what potential articles there may be. We have articles on just two places called Borgo: one in Corsica, France; and one in Lazio, Italy. We have plenty of articles with Borgo as part of the name (18 in total): Borgo Santa Lucia in Campania; Borgo Tossignano and Borgo Val di Taro in Emilia–Romagna; Borgo Velino in Lazio; Borgo di Terzo, Borgo Priolo, Borgo San Giacomo, Borgo San Giovanni and Borgo San Siro in Lombardy; Borgo Pace in Marche; Borgo d'Ale, Borgo San Dalmazzo, Borgo San Martino, Borgo Ticino and Borgo Vercelli in Piedmont; Borgo Valsugana in Trentino–Alto Adige/Südtirol; and Borgo a Mozzano and Borgo San Lorenzo in Tuscany. However, all those 18 are pre-disambiguated (their name is not simply Borgo).

The example you gave in Nocera Umbra is somewhat irrelevant. Firstly, it is in Umbria, but more importantly we have no article about it, there is no redirect to it, and it isn't even mentioned in the article on Nocera Umbra. For the purposes of disambiguation, it is therefore irrelevant. However, in the unlikely event that an article was created, it would be under Borgo, Umbria.

If subsequently there was another article created for a Borgo in Lazio then, under the naming convention for Italy, the articles would be named under the Placename, Province format. If we had two within the province of Roma, then we would move to the Placename, Comune format.

As it is we only have to differentiate between two places in Lazio: Borgo and Borgo Velino.

One final point is that disambiguating by parentheses is deprecated for placenames, unlike (I think) on Italian Wikipedia. Your suggestion of Rione Borgo (Rome) would therefore be Rione Borgo, Rome. However, with the Rione in the title, there would be no need to disambiguate at all. There may well be an argument that all the rioni should be titled Rione Placename, but I am not sure you would find widespread support for that. We do not title articles on frazioni as, for example Frazione Borgo Santa Lucia, nor do we title articles on comuni as, for example, Comune Borgo Velino. I would hazard a guess that such a proposal would be met with widespread opposition. Skinsmoke (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Borgo, Lazio. Since you had some involvement with the Borgo, Lazio redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input re Steamtown - please see comments on ME2's talk page - am appreciative of your attempts to mediate Sulzer55 (talk) 11:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What Rmhermen was referring to when (s)he wrote "De facto standard titling used in many other articles" was that almost all the Allied bombing articles have that extension to the name eg Bombing of Hamburg in World War II, Bombing of Cologne in World War II, while the German bombings mostly have the name Blitz in the name Coventry Blitz, Southampton Blitz etc. -- PBS (talk) 04:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This definitely needs a full discussion if you want to move it (and thus I've reverted your move). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 02:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the move was in line with Wikipedia's policy on naming articles about China. The original title wasn't. I have given you a full explanation at Talk:High-speed rail in China. Of course, you could always get round the naming problem by writing a section about high-speed rail in the Republic of China and including it in the article. Skinsmoke (talk) 09:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like you to make a proper move request for Passenger Rail Transport in China as well on the same grounds. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? This is not a controversial move and is in accordance with the Wikipedia policy. It is you who are going against policy. A move request that is not likely to be controversial does not need to go through the Request Moves procedure. Wikipedia:Requested moves states: In some situations the appropriateness of a move may be under dispute, and discussion is necessary in order to reach a consensus. There is no obligation to list such move requests here; this page may be seen as a place to advertise move debates that would benefit from wider community input, or for users to request assistance from administrators in moving pages. You should explain why you think the move is controversial. Skinsmoke (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per the Uncontroversial requests section of that article. It states in bold letters "If there has been any past debate about the best title for the page, or if anyone could reasonably disagree with the move, then treat it as controversial." I'm disagreeing so you'll need to go through the process. In terms of Wikipedia 'rules' your new proposed title breaks the consise term of WP:TITLE and calling the PRC 'China' is fairly clearly its WP:COMMONNAME. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You changed a mention of "Pondicherry" in this article to read "Puducherry". I've changed it back and I’ve opened a discussion here. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You stated on the article Cawston, Warwickshire that I do not know my east from my west!

We'll sir in this case you were right. How embarassing! The worst thing is that I did a geography degree! The state of the British education system eh? ;-) Cls14 (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

East...West...wherever... For some reason nobody ever gets north and south mixed up, but we all seem to slip up on east and west! The only way I remember it is that on the points of a compass it spells WE! Don't worry about it, the comment was supposed to be humerous rather than seriously admonishing. I was actually looking for the village on Ordnance Survey Election maps and using the description as a guide for where to look. On a hunch, when I couldn't find it, I thought "wonder if they mean west?" Skinsmoke (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I understood the humour. For the N-E-S-W I myself prefer the old Never Eat Shredded Wheat or Naught Elephants Squirt Water! Cls14 (talk) 09:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's any consolation, in my mock French A-Level, many years ago, I spelt cinq as sank! What was that about? Skinsmoke (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know i reverted your edit on the Castlerock article where you removed the translation source from the infobox and inputed the Irish translation into the lede. We have an agreed practice over at the Ireland manual of style that states that as Irish is not official in Northern Ireland and many places don't actual use it, then places that are of Irish origin will have an derive tag after the placename in the lede, for example Belfast ot Tobermore - however places that aren't of Irish origin such as Castlerock don't as obviously it isn;t of Irish origin. Though if there is a modern Irish translation of a place not of Irish origin available it is listed (along with source) into the infobox. Thus i have reverted the article to this agreed practice.Mabuska ^(talk) 18:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Skinsmoke (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to participate in the discussion about a requested move of the article Dir En Grey back to Dir en grey. mx3 話 15:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I reverted your edit about naming not because you were wrong, but because this is the reason the council cited for the name. Mighty Antar (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. In that case, the council's claim should be shown, along with the fact that it is incorrect. My understanding (though it is only a vague memory) was that Deane was chosen because it is located in the exact centre of the borough. The council could, of course, be claiming that Deane has the smallest area, but even then Popham appears to be, and Newtown is definitely, smaller. Without any citation from the council to justify their somewhat ambiguous claim, it seems difficult to see how it can be reliable.

The council's website actually contradicts itself. Headcounts shows that Deane does not have the smallest population.

Can I suggest that the wording is changed to: The council claims that the new title included the names of the largest town and smallest village in the borough, although there are eight civil parishes with populations smaller than Deane. Skinsmoke (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the change in wording will benefit anything, then go ahead, personally I think you're being over analytical, "smallest village" is an ambiguous claim but not an entirely unreasonable one, they may have considered Popham and Newtown and the others as hamlets rather than villages - they may have picked Deane because of it's central spot in the Borough, I really don't know, I suspect a 1978/79 guidebook might tell you or may simply repeat what they state on their website, that it's because Deane is the smallest village in the Borough - they don't define village or qualify "smallest". Mighty Antar (talk) 00:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you had recently edited List of civil parishes in Cambridgeshire list and removed the column list; your edit-summary was common format throughout List of civil parishes in England. Cool. Fair enough. I accept my tags were not common; they were not unique though. No problem with your edit. With my POV hat on, I feel it would be easier to find the parish I am interested in when reading the list; personal viewpoint of course. Would you object if I one day (soon) collated the lists in the Cambs. list into a sectioned-sortable table similar to Worcs (though the Worcs. tables are not sortable) with a view to (a lot later when I am sure I have the refs to back it all up) converting it into a sortable table similar to Cheshire or even better, created ONE sortable table for England by transcluding from each list?

--Senra (Talk) 19:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for your note. I don't think it's particularly helpful for the lists to go off in a hundred different directions, which is why I reverted your change. I think it would be better if we tried to move to a common format throughout the English and Welsh lists. As an experiment, and after discussion with a few editors who had been involved in drawing up some of the lists, I introduced a new format for the metropolitan counties (Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Tyne and Wear, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire and West Midlands), which appears to have gone down quite well. They are certainly an improvement on what is there at present for the rest of the country. I have since expanded that to Cheshire, and it has been partly copied in Somerset, though I have reservations about the way it has been done there: the images concentrate far too much on parish churches (is there nothing else of interest in Somerset?); the attempt to include geographic coordinates has broken the page; and keeping the page broken down into district lists prevents the sortable format that you seem to be aiming for.

I would suggest that if you want to do something with Cambridgeshire, it would be best to follow the Cheshire/metropolitan counties format. It does take a while to do it properly though! I have been working on Lancashire for months! Perhaps get the table up and running, and the images can be added at a later date? it's the images that take the time, as I find it involves searching Geograph for decent images (those on Geograph are free of copyright restrictions, and can be tied to an individual parish by comparing the location map on Geograph with the parish boundaries at Ordnance Survey Election Maps), and then trying to get a mix that gives a representative view of the county as a whole. I try to ensure a mix of churches, chapels, castles, stately homes, industrial architecture, agriculture, bridges, rivers, canals, hills, streetscapes, markets, town halls, shops, cityscapes, sculpture, coastal scenery, beaches, cliffs, meadows, farms, local customs, snowscenes, etc. It's bloody hard work! It is quite rewarding though!

I have some doubts whether even this format will work for the counties with the largest numbers of parishes. Even Cheshire with 332 parishes and 10 unparished areas takes a while to load, but Suffolk has 475 parishes and 2 unparished areas; Lincolnshire has 592 parishes plus 7 unparished areas; Norfolk has 540 parishes and 3 unparished areas; and North Yorkshire has a mind boggling 783 parishes and 6 unparished areas. The rest of the country should be OK as they have fewer than Cheshire, though I haven't yet worked out the figures for the South West (Devon, and maybe Dorset, could be a problem). Wales will certainly have to be split, probably along preserved counties, or maybe the principal areas).

I hadn't seen the abomination that had been made of Cornwall. I can see no reason why we need two lists for the same thing, one purporting to be pre 2009 (it isn't), and I have my doubts about the Worcestershire list (which the creator of seems to have lost interest in part way through, for some peculiar reason!).

Incidentally, I have now got all the population figures for Cambridgeshire in Excel format (even the latest new parish in Peterborough), if it's any help for you. I could Email it to you if you want. Similarly, the references to back those up (basically, one citation for each district's parishes; plus individual citations for each unparished area and parish created since the 2001 census).

Finally, I think the idea of one sortable list for England may be almost impossible. It seems to be the links that cause the problem with page size/loading. It would be a massive page, and I suspect it just wouldn't work. It's worth noting that all these pages originally started off as a single List of civil parishes in England that, as it grew, had to be divided up into sub-pages. Then the problems started!

Let me know what you think. Skinsmoke (talk) 01:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Census data with refs for Cambridgeshire would be magic, thank you; sure send via email. I am prepared to have a crack at creating a sortable table for Cambridgeshire in my user-space and see how far and how quickly I can do it; issue I have is a growing list of other committments. Like a dog with a bone, I still think the change I made to Cambridgeshires list was for the better; if you agree but would like consistency, I am prepared to slice through all the countines with sectioned lists and convert them to sectioned multi-column lists --Senra (Talk) 10:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some suggestions to Senra. Dr. Blofeld 12:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work on this article. I've nominated it for GA. The only outstanding issue I see is maybe you need to seperate the publisher info from the title in some of the referenced url links that feature using cite web that's all. Dr. Blofeld 21:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments on Aberdaron. Any suggestions or contributions are always welcome. I keep going in from time to time and tweaking it. Could you give me an example of what you mean on the referenced url links, and I'll see what I can do.

I've added a comment to yours at Senra on the civil parishes, which you may care to have a look at. Skinsmoke (talk) 22:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Skinsmoke. You have new messages at Senra's talk page.
Message added 08:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hello, Skinsmoke. You have new messages at Senra's talk page.
Message added Senra (Talk) 18:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

See also discussion in Talk:List of civil parishes in Cornwall#A recent history merge.

Hi, I noticed that on your request that List of civil parishes in Cornwall (pre-2009) was merged into List of civil parishes in Cornwall. Although I agree fully with your above statement that the pre-2009 article was not fit for purpose, after discussion at WikiProject Cornwall we agreed that original version at List of civil parishes in Cornwall was the most up-to-date and should remain on that page. I have asked the admin who carried out the merging to see if they can revert it and then I think a better course of action would be to consider whether we either improve or delete the pre-2009 article. One of the main problems we had with how the information was presented on the (now) pre-2009 article was the inclusion of the former Municipal Borough and Rural/Urban Districts in the Notes section - as Cornwall became a unitary authority, people might assume these were the former District Councils that the UA replaced - therefore a split would be needed to preserve this info. (Sorry if that all seems confusing, after the merge it's hard to be clear about which version/page I'm talking about, please ask if you need clarification)

On another note I agree that a common format would be good for the List of civil parishes in x for England and Wales. I see that there have been some discussions on various Users' talk pages on this - would it be best to have a discussion on this in a centralised location so all editors of List of civil parishes in x could contribute and be aware of it, if it ever gets rolled out? Perhaps on Talk:List of civil parishes in England? Cheers, Zangar (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem here is that the changes were done by cut-and-paste, which for copyright reasons, is not acceptable. As I stated in my nomination of the article for repair, any changes could have been made to the original page. It didn't help that the page was moved to a title that simply didn't make sense (the list was not pre-2009, as it had been updated to include the parishes created since then). Nor was the information on the Isles of Scilly correct (although there are no parish councils, the civil parishes legally exist). Only those civil parishes with a population greater than 300 are required to have a parish council; those over 100 people can have them; those under cannot unless it is a joint parish council with adjoining parishes. The lists maintained by various local authority websites tend to be misleading, as they only tend to list parish councils!

There has been considerable discussion of the format that is best for the lists over the last two years. Consensus was that the former urban districts/rural districts/municipal boroughs/county boroughs should be included, as, on the whole, these existed for eighty years, and they are of particular use for people trying to trace roots through genealogy. Although Cornwall (like Shropshire, Wiltshire, Durham etc) has subsequently gone through a further reorganisation, the 1974 districts lasted only for about 35 years. However, if it is felt that these should be additionally included as a guide, there may be a couple of solutions.

Having got these lists to a common format, I have been working on improving the format, again following discussion with a number of editors who have been involved in various parts of the country in the past. The new format has so far been rolled out at Greater Manchester, Tyne and Wear, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, West Midlands and Cheshire. I am currently working on Cambridgeshire and Lancashire, but it takes time. These are to the format that has been favoured for articles achieving featured list status (though I have not yet had the patience/courage/determination to add alt image captions, and nobody else seems to be bothered adding them!). A slightly different format, which achieved featured list status, has been tried by another editor at Somerset, though the inclusion of geographic coordinates appears to have broken the page, and it has subsequently lost its featured list status. A completely different format has been started at Worcestershire, though the editor concerned seems to have lost interest part-way through.

Consideration was given, particularly for the new large unitary authorities, to breaking up the lists by alphabetical subheadings. However, this would be incompatible with the upgrade of the pages, as the whole aim of those is that there should be a sortable list, that can be sorted by parish name; current district; former district; status; and population (it is possible to list all the parishes/unparished areas, for example, in population size from the largest to the smallest).

Consideration was also given to including whether a parish had a council, meeting or joint council. Consensus was eventually reached to leave this out, as it is not always easy to obtain this information, though I personally see no reason why, on the upgraded lists, this could not be included (at least for parish meetings and joint parish councils) as notes in the "Refs" column. If that is the decision, however, it needs to be rolled out throughout the country (and an interim solution put in place for those counties not yet upgraded, perhaps on the lines that town or city status is currently shown).

One other thought is that, with the new format, these pages should be retitled in the format Civil parishes in Cornwall etc. There is no longer a requirement for lists to be titled List of... and, in any case, the upgraded pages are not strictly a list, but rather an article that includes a list.

Please take a look at the upgraded list format, and let me have your comments. Skinsmoke (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the in-depth reply. I see what you mean about the use of cut-and-paste method to make these changes being a mistake. Although I personally favour the old layout with the alphabetical subheadings on the main list page if we're to move on to the sortable table format used in the examples you gave, it would probably be best to stick to how it is now. Yet I think we will have to come up with a method that includes references to the District Councils, as although they may not have been around as long as the Rural/Urban Districts those of us born in the 1980s/90s would remember them more so.

I know we did change the naming conventions for a few of the parishes, so I'll try to update the current list based on the old list. Thanks for updating the Isles of Scilly as well. Zangar (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and express the Cornwall upgrade, by the way (next after Cambridgeshire?). The 1974 districts can be incorporated quite easily (particularly on the upgrade) by using the refs column, though I can't find a way of getting a specific column for those districts due to space limitations. Although it won't be possible to sort by 1974 district, the information will be there in the format ^[1] etc. The actual wording is negotiable!

Not sure what you mean about the "naming conventions for a few of the parishes". Can you give me an example or two? The list should have the official name of each parish, and has been checked against the Office for National Statistics Parish Headcounts (correct at 2003); Ordnance Survey Election Maps (largely up to date, though I have noticed one new parish in another county that hasn't been included to date); and the Department for Communities and Local Government Bulletins of Changes to Local Authority Electoral Arrangements, Areas and Names in England (correct at 1 April 2009: the new edition should be published in the next couple of months taking it to 1 April 2010). Any alterations have been cited, where possible with the legal document formally changing the name (in Cornwall, the only example is the St Austell parishes which, as they have not yet appeared in the Bulletin of Changes, are cited with a Restormel Borough Council document). It is possible that something has been missed, though I usually find that the problem is that the district council hasn't issued the Section 70 notice to formally change a parish name, and so the name officially remains unchanged. Skinsmoke (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, if you'd like I'm sure Andy F and I (and others at WP:Cornwall can do most of the leg work on the upgrade on that one, but if you'd be able to review the upgrade and round it off that'd be great (where would be best to start making the upgrade - a new page in User/Project space or just do it continuously in the actual article?) The column using refs for all the districts should be fine as you say. I think I've updated all the names (a few of them where named after their geographic location rather than the civil parish name), we got this from the Cornwall Council website (that uses the OS Election Maps) and was referenced in List of civil parishes in Cornwall/version 2, although I assume that list was correct. Zangar (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will get back to you overnight on this, as I'm a bit tied up right now. I would suggest working up the page in a Sandbox (others should be able to get access and work on it that way, if there's a few of you. The list is of civil parishes, so should show the official name of the parish (though I usually link in the format [[Lanteglos-by-Fowey|Lanteglos]]. Bear in mind that the name of a parish only officially changes once the council has issued the Section 70 notice (a number of councils are particularly poor at this, so their use tends to differ from the official version: East Riding of Yorkshire are a bugger for it!). Ordnance Survey Election Maps is usually the most reliable source, though there can be a timelag of a couple of months before they update. You need to turn on the parish layer to show the parish boundaries/names. I am working on the statistics for Cornwall's parishes at the moment (that's why I'm tied up) for the introduction. Will get back to you. Skinsmoke (talk) 22:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taken a while to get there, but I've managed to work something up at User:Skinsmoke/Sandbox/Civil parishes/Kernow (have taken it to the letter F!). Haven't put a reference in for the 1974 districts as this would simply duplicate the population references (which are split by 1974 districts). Have even managed to get the Cornish names in there! Let me know what you think. If any of your colleagues at the Cornish project can help, there are 65 parishes where we need a Cornish name (I can work out about 10 of these, but they really need confirming by someone who knows the language, or at least has a reliable source). Skinsmoke (talk) 20:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done with that! I've made a few minor additions so far. I'll try to help you in expanding the list in a day or two. Nice to see the inclusion of the Cornish language as well - I tend to use The Cornish Language Fellowship website to help with names (although the list isn't complete for all the civil parishes). With regards to the "District" column; I think this meant to refer to the next layer of government, in which case it should point to Cornwall Council, the UA, also I don't think this column needs the Cornish language name as it's already stated in the lead of the article. Zangar (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I've moved the St Austell comment to the introduction, not because it is inappropriate where it was, but simply to prevent it being accidentally copied with the rest of the general text when setting up an upgrade for other counties. In the introduction, it immediately follows the text that has to be changed for each county, and so should be more noticeable.

There was a somewhat heated discussion some time back at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography on how to link English unitary authority areas. The consensus was that we should link to the area, not to the council, in line with how we link to metropolitan districts, London boroughs, shire districts, Scottish council areas, Welsh counties/county boroughs and Northern Irish districts. The thinking was that people following the link are more likely to be looking for an article about the area, and its people, culture, geography, economy etc, rather than one about the political composition of the council. Anyone seeking the politics, can of course, follow the link from the area article to the council article.

I'm easy one way or the other on the Cornish name for Cornwall. It's not a major issue on this particular page, where there are only two districts (technically the unitary authority area of Cornwall is a district, I've not gone mad!). However, I was thinking more about when we get to Wales, where it might be useful to have the information to hand, rather than have to go searching the page for it, particularly as it isn't a major problem technically to include it (I just copy and paste that section). For Wales, it may also be possible to include the Welsh form of the former authority, such as "Porthmadog Urban District Dosbarth Dinesig Porthmadog." Unfortunately, I don't know enough Cornish to do that for Cornwall, other than that ranndir is district! Skinsmoke (talk) 02:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Warlinen site has reduced the number of parishes without a Cornish name to 18, with 11 needing clarification (including Camborne and Saint Austell)! Warlinen has different names for those two than are already shown on the Wikipedia articles, just to complicate matters. Skinsmoke (talk) 02:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closure[edit]

Well done on all the work with the upgrade, the page looks great now! All we need is a map of the 1974-2009 districts and it should be complete. As per your suggestion, I've copied our conversations (as collapsible boxes) into the talk page. Here's something to acknowledge all your hard work:

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	For all your tireless work on the upgrade of the List of civil parishes in Cornwall. Good job! Zangar (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Zangar (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that mate. Very much appreciated. I can truly say Cornwall was the most exhausting one to date! Your help was very much appreciated, and I think we've got something that looks pretty good. Will look even better once we can get the map done. Skinsmoke (talk) 10:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss these first on the article talk pages, and remember that the OS does get place names wrong sometimes. There isn't an "official" name for anywhere, we have to look at various sources and make a judgement after discussion. Thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 13:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said anything about an official name, but I did give three reliable sources (there were no sources given for the previous titles). However, contrary to your assertion, there are official names for local government entities, such as civil parishes, unitary authorities, metropolitan boroughs, counties, districts or London boroughs: they are the names given in the appropriate legislation.

There is no requirement to discuss page moves on the talk page first, though it is wise to use the Requested moves process if you think a move will be controversial. Indeed, editors are encouraged to be bold, but to give reasons for their action. That is what I did. If you have a problem with a particular move, then it is up to you to raise it for discussion. So what, precisely, do you have a problem with? Skinsmoke (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's wise to raise major changes to an article on the talk page first. This isn't just about pagemoves, it does relate to a lot of what you are doing. I am concerned that 1) you are moving articles to titles that will be unfamiliar to the people who live in the places described, 2) you aren't discussing your changes, and are dismissive of requests to discuss them, 3) you aren't editing the navboxes to reflect the changes in page titles you make (this is necessary to make the navboxes function correctly when displayed in page), and 4) you seem to be intent on imposing a one size-fits-all solution, even when it clearly does not fit. DuncanHill (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than being dismissive of requests to discuss the changes, I specifically asked you to do so at 13:51 today. Which are you referring to? By navboxes do you mean the Infobox? If so, I thought I had changed that also. If you can come up with some specific examples that you have concerns with, I am more than happy to discuss them. Your fourth point makes hardly any sense, and I really haven't a clue what you mean. Skinsmoke (talk) 14:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no requirement to discuss page moves on the talk page first" sounds pretty dismissive to me. Maybe you meant it to sound like "Oh that's a good idea and would lead to consensus building". The navboxes appear at the bottom of articles, in Cornwall they are arranged by constituency (there was discussion about this, please do not go changing them willy-nilly just because you do something different for Greater Manchester). Specific examples of moves include Stoke Climsland (already undone by another editor), and the mess you made of the lists of civil parishes pre and post 2009 - they needed work, not buggering about, and if you'd asked Andy or at the wikiproject you'd have got help with the needed work). As for point 4, your insistence on linking to geographical area instead of authority in the uthority field of infoboxes (just because it suits some counties and not others), your insistence on not including the former districts, just because that suits counties which are not unitary. I could go on. You also seem to have a habit of fragmenting discussion, eg replying to a thread on one page with a new thread on another. That isn't helpful either. DuncanHill (talk) 15:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no requirement to discuss page moves on the talk page first" was simply a statement of fact. Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold. If I had thought that the moves were likely to be controversial, I would have gone through the Requested moves procedure, having already checked the talk pages to see if there had been any previous move discussions. That is exactly the process which is set out in the guidelines.

I'll have a look at Stoke Climsland/Stokeclimsland.

An administrator was responsible for the mess you made of the lists of civil parishes pre and post 2009. He undid the changes that had been made because they had been carried out by a cut and paste move, which as you well know, is unacceptable, not least for copyright reasons. I specifically didn't do so myself, as I had been heavily involved in editing the original page before the cut and paste abomination had been made, and wanted somebody who was independent to look at it. However, your comments would equally have applied to Andy when he was making those moves, considering the amount of work I had already done on the page.

Apologies about the navboxes (yes, I know what you mean now). I had overlooked them. However, as you clearly objected to the change anyway, at least it meant there was less to revert. I don't know why you think I would want to change the format of the navboxes because you do something different for Greater Manchester. I don't recall ever suggesting such a thing. In fact, I never commented at all, so fail to understand why you should assume I have a particular view for or against. I had seen the discussion that resulted in the decision to organise them by constituency and had no problem with the decision, even though I thought it a little unusual (or, to put it another way, innovative). As I had done nothing, nor suggested anything, why couldn't you assume good faith?

My insistence on linking to geographical area instead of authority in the uthority field of infoboxes (just because it suits some counties and not others) was the view of every other editor apart from you who bothered to comment in the discussion, and my insistence was on adopting the consensus view, rather than that of a minority of one. If the consensus had supported linking to the council, I would have been equally insistent on that.

If you bother to actually read any of my comments about including the 1974–2009 districts, you will see that I have no insistence on not including the former districts. On the contrary, I agreed that we should try to find a way of including them, and have been trying to find a way of doing so, which is more than I can say about yourself. Not one useful suggestion from you of how to get round the problem. In fact, not one suggestion at all, useful or not, and no real response to indicate whether the suggestion that has been made is acceptable or not. In the absence of a response, I had put a request together at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop, to see if we could get someone to produce the maps. Another idea I have been pondering is to reorganise all the lists on a district/unitary basis, rather than a county basis. This would leave a column free and would solve the problem that was encountered at List of civil parishes in Somerset, where the upgrade (not one I've done) has broken the page, because of the sheer size being too much for the softwear. However, it does mean that it will no longer be possible to sort the parishes on a county wide basis, whether alphabetically, by population, or by pre-1974 district; and some of the lists will be very small. Do the advantages outweight the disadvantages? I'm not sure, and it will probably need to be discussed on a much wider basis before a conclusion is reached, but it is an option.

As to fragmenting discussion, I left a message on your Talk page simply because it had been some time since you had left your message, and it looked like I had been deliberately ignoring you. It was a matter of courtesy, and an explanation of why I hadn't got back to you earlier. You then continued the discussion on your Talk page, rather than reverting back to the original location. Perhaps instead I should have put a note on your Talk page referring you to a reply in the original location, but in the circumstances that just seemed impersonal and bureaucratic.

I fail to understand why you are taking such a combative role. Wikipedia works best when it involves cooperation between editors, not when editors are at each others' throats. Indeed, that is one of the basic tenets of the encyclopedia. That doesn't mean that editors will always agree, but it does involve trying to compromise and collectively come up with solutions. It also means listening to what the other person has to say, and trying to accommodate those ideas as well as your own. Surely that is the basis we need to move forward. So how about a truce? Skinsmoke (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review has started. Please address comments.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me. I thought there'd be more! Skinsmoke (talk) 12:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest issue is the referencing. Each one needs to have a {cite web or cite book and |author= |title=|publisher=|date=| etc.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understood that the cite web or cite book formula wasn't mandatory, even for good or featured articles. Skinsmoke (talk) 08:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing info though is I think.. Super work BTW on User:Skinsmoke/Sandbox/Civil parishes/Kernow, exactly what we need.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ta for that - it's gone live now, along with Cambridgeshire to join Cheshire and the six metros. Lancashire very close to completion, and Bedfordshire underway. Not been up to doing much this last week as suffering from the flu, but need to sort out Aberdaron in next few days. Skinsmoke (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add the book page numbers to the sources where required for Aberdaron? Hope you are feeling better,♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the mend thanks. I'll have a go, though I'm struggling with the kayaking reference. I originally found the section online (Google Books I think), but it appears to be another part of the book now showing. It may need a visit to a library! Skinsmoke (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that Thornton-Cleveleys should be spelled with an en-dash. It seems to me that it's a hyphenated name.-- Dr Greg  talk  00:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding was that if it's an artificial conjunction of two names, like Baden–Württemberg, it's an en-dash; if it's something like Poulton-le-Fylde it's hyphens. But I don't think it's worth fighting over. Must admit, I was surprised to see it with either, as I've always known it as Thornton Cleveleys. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a requested move discussion underway that involves the titling of the articke Kyūshū which definitely has a consensus to move to "Kyushu". As such, I have reverted several of your edits changing instances of "Kyushu" to "Kyūshū", particularly in proper names such as University of Kitakyushu (it obviously has an official English name that is not the same as the article title the city currently has).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I admit I hadn't noticed the discussion on changing the article title. However, do you not think your reversions are pre-empting the results of those discussions? The fact that a discussion "is moving towards" something does not mean that consensus has been reached, and until that point is reached, the Manual of Style is quite clear that use in the text should match the article title. Skinsmoke (talk) 05:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article title is soon to change in the case of "Kyushu" at least.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That hasn't been decided yet. Skinsmoke (talk) 07:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hey there, this is just a bulk message inviting you to re-think the topic as was discussed more than 6 months ago and is still unresolved. feel free to jump here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Icelandic_debt_repayment_referendum,_2010#Time_to_settle_the_title_dispute.3F and help figure out how we can end this conclusively this time. --Lotsofmagnets (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Skinsmoke; just wanted to make it clear that my stated dislike for the current title is not at all intended to be taken personally - I realize that your proposal was designed to accommodate some widely divergent viewpoints and appreciate your efforts. Any title is better than six (or more) competing titles.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 08:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It certainly isn't taken personally. I actually think the title we're at now is a slight improvement on what I suggested! I suspect this is probably the best we're going to get for the timebeing, at least until it stops being such a touchy subject. In a few years, nobody will care what it was called. Skinsmoke (talk) 10:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason you were being overly dramatic in your comments on Talk:Pay Money to My Pain and Talk:Journey Through the Decade? Changing the casing of three letters in one article and one in the other is not "ridiculous capitalisation" by any means.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. It's a feeble attempt to appear to be "different" and is juvenile in the extreme. I don't object to whatever style a band, artist or town selects for their logo, or their album cover: that's a matter of artistic choice. What I do object to most strongly is the frequent attempts on Wikipedia to try to impose that artistic style on English prose. An encyclopedia is written in English, using English grammar and capitalisation, not some made up concoction created purely because some idiot thinks it might look nice on the cover of a CD. Clearly, we are not going to agree on this one. Skinsmoke (talk) 06:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But it's the letters M and T. Why is it such a problem? If the band calls themselves "Pay money To my Pain" and that is how everyone else refers to the group then why do we decide that their method of capitalizing their own name is wrong? There has been a discussion going on at WT:MOS that has been determining that WP:MOSTM's treatment of these article titles has been wrong. Songs, band names, and stage names are not trademarks so they should not be subject to those rules. "Pay money To my Pain" is a perfectly viable article title. Right now, "Journey through the Decade" isn't because of WP:ALBUMCAPS but there can always be exceptions made to be consistent with the actual usage.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my previous comment, we are never going to agree on this one. Skinsmoke (talk) 08:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell from your comments you are being fairly ignorant. "[B]ecause some idiot thinks it might look nice on the cover of a CD" seems to work for Anglophone musicians, but not musicians of other languages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish. The answer's still no. My opinion will not change. Skinsmoke (talk) 08:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Skinsmoke. Edits such as that make display the Latin alphabet of the transliteration/transcriptions with the font specified for non-Latin alphabet. I suggest that transliteration/transcriptions should always be written outside of the non-Arabic-script language templates :) I saw the same error in too many articles. Thanks. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 08:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. The reference which gave the parish is from the Hampshire Board of Agriculture - a company that gave out the acreages of parishes in South East England that no longer exists. The reference on the detached portion of the parish came from 1905, so I think that it might have changed since then! You can see the full history here but the stuff on British History is very dated. And I must admit, back in June 2010 I was very inexperienced on using citations on Wikipedia. But the parish boundaries have changed since then and looking on the civil parish maps there certainly is no detatched portion. I know the local area quite well and there has actually been some rearranging in the past few years. I have removed the sentence saying that there was a detatched portion of the parish. Thanks, Jaguar (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jaguar. Thanks for that. Skinsmoke (talk) 08:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Skinsmoke. You have new messages at Beagel's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Skinsmoke! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the sur × × €4.95 / month Favourites List Audio Listining Color Mode Monthly New Updates Fullname * Email * Credit or debit card Subscribe A PHP Error was encountered Severity: Notice Message: Undefined variable: userid Filename: user/popup_modal.php Line Number: 68 Backtrace: File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/user/popup_modal.php Line: 68 Function: _error_handler File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/page/index.php Line: 478 Function: view File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/controllers/Main.php Line: 107 Function: view File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/index.php Line: 315 Function: require_once "> Subscribe Now Premium Membership × €4.95 € 9.90 / month Create a Premium Account quick and easy Save your Favourite Pages Listen to any page in Audio Colour Night Mode Create your Account Modal title × Close Save changes Cancel Subscription × User_talk:Skinsmoke" id="cancelSubscription" name="cancelSubscription" class="mb-0"> Are you sure you want to cancel your membership with us? A PHP Error was encountered Severity: Notice Message: Undefined variable: user_membership Filename: user/popup_modal.php Line Number: 192 Backtrace: File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/user/popup_modal.php Line: 192 Function: _error_handler File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/page/index.php Line: 478 Function: view File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/controllers/Main.php Line: 107 Function: view File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/index.php Line: 315 Function: require_once A PHP Error was encountered Severity: Warning Message: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() Filename: user/popup_modal.php Line Number: 192 Backtrace: File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/user/popup_modal.php Line: 192 Function: _error_handler File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/page/index.php Line: 478 Function: view File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/controllers/Main.php Line: 107 Function: view File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/index.php Line: 315 Function: require_once A PHP Error was encountered Severity: Notice Message: Undefined variable: userid Filename: user/popup_modal.php Line Number: 208 Backtrace: File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/user/popup_modal.php Line: 208 Function: _error_handler File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/page/index.php Line: 478 Function: view File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/controllers/Main.php Line: 107 Function: view File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/index.php Line: 315 Function: require_once "> Yes Cancel Continue Subscription Harry Potter Books × A PHP Error was encountered Severity: Notice Message: Undefined variable: products Filename: user/popup_harry_book.php Line Number: 24 Backtrace: File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/user/popup_harry_book.php Line: 24 Function: _error_handler File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/page/index.php Line: 479 Function: view File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/controllers/Main.php Line: 107 Function: view File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/index.php Line: 315 Function: require_once A PHP Error was encountered Severity: Warning Message: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() Filename: user/popup_harry_book.php Line Number: 24 Backtrace: File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/user/popup_harry_book.php Line: 24 Function: _error_handler File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/page/index.php Line: 479 Function: view File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/controllers/Main.php Line: 107 Function: view File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/index.php Line: 315 Function: require_once