User talk:G-Man/Archive 3, Sept 2004-Feb 05

Rail transport in Great Britain

As I seem to remember, you moved it grumbling about misuse of the terms Great Britain versus United Kingdom. We then had a discussion and vote, and a consensus was reached to disambig the UK page into Ireland and Great Britain. talk:Rail transport in the United Kingdom/Alternate naming schemes. The pages that are linked to disambig pages are routinely fixed by bots, anyway, so don't sweat. Having at the "UK" page is plain wrong, and the disambig page explains why. Morven agrees with me btw, so don't have a go. Dunc_Harris|☺ 14:34, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:featured picture candidates

File:Brsince78 photo 2444.jpg

HST

I nominated this for featured picture candidates, but trying to convince them its a well constructed photo rather than a snapshot is difficult (guon vote ferit you know you wannu) Dunc_Harris|☺ 12:33, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Population figures

I have to ask where you're getting the figures you're using to update articles. I wonder how you know there were 2 more people living in Manchester in 2002 than in 2001, given the definitive census is only every 10 years. I'm doubtful how the population of Greater Manchester grew by 75,000 in one year, too... Thanks. -- Arwel 22:39, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's according to the 2002 population estimate, which I imagine is a refined/updated version of the 2001 census. I got the figures from the info boxes at the side of the article, as so to make the figures consistant.

I have read that the 2001 census figures were highly dodgy. And in many instances severely undercounted the population of a number of places. Apparently it origionally undercounted the population of Manchester by 25,000 read this so it's probably not so unbelievable that the population of Gtr Manchester was also severely undercounted. G-Man 22:47, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Official invitation

Hi!

This is a message to let you know that there is now a UK-specific Wikipedia community page at Wikipedia:UK wikipedians' notice board. It would be great if you could come and get involved! -- Graham ☺ | Talk 23:00, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Rome deletions

Somehow there was a duplicated paragraph (on the etymology of Rome), that needed to be deleted. But did you intend to delete non-duplicated stuff about the hills, or wuzzat just an accident? If intentional, why?? (Izzit covered somewhere else in this labyrinthine site?) -- Best, Bill 22:56, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There seemed to be a duplicate history section. Whilst the main history section had no header. So I deleted the duplicate. If there was anything there which I shoundent of deleted then it should be merged with the main history section.

The article hurts my brain reading it it's such a mess. There seems to be a whole article about the founding of Rome here.

Do you think that the history bit should be moved to its own article History of Rome and merged with the founding article, I'm sure there would be enough material, seem as the place has been around for some 3000 years. The main Rome article could have a summary of the history and concentrate on the modern city. How does that sound? G-Man 23:43, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Leeds

I have some reservations about a merger, though not strong. One article should describe the city. t'Other should describe the local authority. Morwen, when she was still with us, seemed to wish to insist that what I would tend to call Leeds City Council, should be called City of Leeds. Which is in my book way misleading, but there you go. I had a discussion with her w.r.t. City of Bradford, which, I insisted, would piss the good people of Ilkley off something rotten to be told they lived in the City of Bradford. Whch, indeed is the case. Where does this get us? Only that I have a preference for an article about the local authority or local authority district, which should in my book be distinct from an article about a city proper. All that said, if you do merge them, please try to draw out the distinction between one and the other. (and cf. Alnwick and Alnwick (district)) before you leap. --Tagishsimon

Here we get into all sorts of complications, for example Birmingham encompasses places which have a seperate identity such as Sutton Coldfield the people of which dont generally like to think of themselves as being in Birmingham, but I dont see anyone seriously proposing that that should be split into 'Birmingham' and City of Birmingham.

The fact is that most city/authority boundaries encompass some places which are not part of the place proper and have a seperate identity, it seems that we get into a minefield on this issue over whether to split or not split articles.

It is generally a matter of judgement, and in my personal judgement 'Leeds' is strongly identified in the public mind with being a city. And saying "Leeds is a place within the City of Leeds" does IMO seem rather odd and counter intuitive to most people. In this case I'm not too sure how you can distinguish 'Leeds' from the 'City of Leeds'.

I didn't put up the merger notices by-the-way that was some anon who obviously took it up. G-Man 20:21, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Britarch list

Hi G-Man, sounds like a good idea. User:Penfold was doing a Category:British Archaeology but that also includes museums, laws and monument types so I'm sure there's room for a list too. I think would be good to have it divided by period as has been done in other lists of archaeological sites so it can be linked to from the various articles and similar sites more easily found. adamsan 12:32, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Birmingham New Street

Disgussion Moved to Talk: Birmingham New Street Station

Shipston

Whatever you definitiion of Worcestershire, claiming that this town has never been in it is such a glaring example of your manifest ignorance of it that you put yourself in a very weak position from which to claim any expertise relating to the matter. Whether you like it or not, wikipedia policy holds that it is wholly acceptable to state the traditional county of a place, and whether you know it or not, Shipston-on-Stour is in the traditional county of Worcestershire, and has been for over a millennium... 80.255 20:59, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh, here we go again. We've been here before haven't we 80.255? Check your atlas. Shipston-on-Stour is in Warwickshire. Whether it has been in Worcestershire in the past I cannot comment on, and you are welcome to comment that the place was in that county once upon a time, but in the current day it's in Warwickshire. Please don't keep adding that places "are in the traditional county of..." when they're not. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 21:06, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Stating the traditional county is acceptable under policy. G-Man appears to have accepted this. What he appears to dispute in this instance is that the traditional county of Worcestershire includes Shipston-on-Stour. It does. I have indeed checked my atlas. I doubt that you have an atlas showing the traditional county, but if you do, check yours. And if you don't, then I don't really see how you can comment on the matter with any qualified manner! 80.255 21:14, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes 80.255 stating the traditional county is perfectly acceptable, but not in the present tense. As is perfectly clear in the naming policy. G-Man 21:05, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am not questioning that stating the traditional county is acceptable under policy, but what you were doing was stating that the town was still in the traditional county before stating what county it is actually in: that is not within wikipedia policy and is very misleading. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 10:13, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Have you tried looking at a map recently. Shipston-on-Stour is clearly not part of Worcestershire. If you would like to provide any evidence to the contrary I would love to see it. An please stop misquoting wikipedia policy, If you start up with this nonsense again you'll wind up getting banned. G-Man 21:08, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You're utterly wrong. With pleasure I shall direct you to a map from encyclopaedia britannica clearly showing the location in question. Hold on a second...

Here you go: [1] (high resolution file, will take a little while to load fully), a scanned map from the 9th edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica. Since you are obviously a world-renowned expert of the town, I trust you will be able to locate it on a map! Shipston-on-Stour has NEVER been part of any entity called Worcestershire in its entire history, but Pigs have often taken to the air! Have you seen many flying pigs recently, G-Man? 80.255 21:26, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Compare http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Shipston-on-Stour%2C+Warwickshire%22

with http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Shipston-on-Stour%2C+Worcestershire%22 The google test indicates it's in the former.  Google is good for deciding the most common names of places isn't it G-Man? Dunc_Harris|☺ 21:33, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Google tests have severe limitations, apart from the fact that this isn't a question of a "common name", it's a question the entities in which a place lies. If everything could be decided by google, why bother to have an encyclopaedia at all - just let everyone use google!

"Shipston-on-Stour, Gloucestershire" returns 52 results. The moral - don't put your trust in google... 80.255 22:16, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, apparently Shipston was mentioned in the Domesday Book as being in an exclave of Worcestershire. I imagine it reverted to being in Warwickshire in 1844 or whenever.

Your map looks highly dubious to me, it claims to be from 1885, but shows Coventry as a village, however by 1885 Coventry was a large town which makes me highly suspicious of the accuracy your map. I suspect it is at least 100 years older then it claims to be, and shows the pre-1844 county boundaries.

So are you refering to the pre or post 1844 county boundaries 80,255, if the former, then I surpose you must also believe that Coventry is a county in its own right instead of being in Warwickshire, and all the other wierd anomalies, that that would throw up.

The town's website Here refers to it as being in Warwickshire, so Shipstonians obviously dont believe it is in Worcestershire, and that is good enough for me. G-Man 21:49, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Only one sizable exclave of Worcestershire was affected by the 1844 Act. The map was from the 1880s. That you could possible think it could be from the 1780s shows how little you're familiar with maps. An 18th century map would look completely different stylistically. It would also show

1) Iccomb as being in an exclave of Worcs (compare with, for example, an Archer map from the 1820s)

2) Tutnall and Cobley as lying in a large exclave of Warwickshire

3) Rochford, in the north west, as lying in an exclave of Hereforshire.

I suggest you go and look in a 8th edition Encyclopaedia Britannica yourself if you doubt the map, a link to which I provided. I also suggest you ask anyone who knows the first thing about cartography or Worcestershire.

To clarify, lest your immagination get the better of my map, Shipston-on-Stour was completely unaffected by the 1844 Act, as were all the excalves visible on the map I directed you to. Coventry was one of the Counties Corporate, I believe; it was considered to remain part of Warwickshire, but enjoyed a higher status. But that is quite irrelevant to this matter, as you very well know! . Now you are resorting to a town council website, in order to 'prove' where its inhabitants supposedly think it is! And even that is rather dubious given a tiny percentage of people involved with small town councils.

In any case, by the meaning and usage of the term traditional county, it is both perfectly acceptable and in line with policy to state that the town is in worcestershire. 80.255 22:16, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

With respect the map cant possibly be from the 1880s, as by that time Birmingham had a population of over half a million, yet your map shows it as a small town. Coventry had a population of 50,000 by 1885 but according to your map it is a small village, I have a street map of Birmingham from 1750 which shows it about the same size it is on your map, so it probably dates from about then.

That besides what you are doing is completely unnaceptable, according to Wikipedia policy, which clearly states that we treat counties as entities which have changed over time. Frankly I dont care what county it may have been in in the distant past. The fact is it is in Warwickshire now, That is where all maps show it as being, that is where the town council says it is. That is where it shall be on Wikipedia, as according to policy. G-Man 22:27, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Map of Shipston area

I've been reading the controversy that 80.255 has generated about Shipston so I went to look at the Shipston page. I was amazed to find an ancient map which was an insult to the reader. It's great that you've removed it. I then started to look for a modern one but no luck. So I went to Warwickshire and thought that your map there would at least show where Shipston was. So I put it on the article. Hope that's OK with you. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 19:24, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I shall have to go down there someday and take some photos. I have a feeling that 80.255 did all this just to get at me, cause I've clashed with him on numerous occasions in the past, there are plenty of other examples of places in 'traditional counties' around the place, that he could have altered. So it makes me suspicious as to why he picked on this particular obscure one. G-Man 19:34, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Suggested explanation of policy

Yes, your explanation seems very clear and I thoroughly support it. If User:80.255 objects to it (as I suspect they will), maybe we might have to have a vote on it. Warofdreams 19:05, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• I agree that it seems like an explanation of existing policy. I doubt 80.255 will see it that way, and if there is a dispute, a vote should quickly settle it. Warofdreams 19:18, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think clarifying the policy is a good idea. Angela. 19:26, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea too. -- Arwel 17:27, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sigh, writing good policy is so hard, but yes a clarification is required here and I approve of what you have done. Thanks. Pcb21| Pete 17:40, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fully agree with the change, thanks for taking the trouble to clarify. Chris Jefferies 18:09, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I too agree with the change and clarification, thanks for letting me know. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 20:14, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Towns in...

Thanks for your help! I've been using the ceremonial counties of England, as some of the administrative counties consist entirely of one town. I've not been putting the category on city articles, but it would probably be a useful thing to do. Warofdreams 19:00, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC) I've been putting such places in Category:London Districts - it is all rather vague as to what is or isn't a town in London - but feel free to come up with a better plan! I'm not sure where to put Hugh Town. Strictly speaking the Isles of Scilly are a ceremonial county, but a category for one town seems overkill. Any thoughts? Warofdreams 19:25, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wendover

Wendover is a town, this is a long running dispute going on with one or two anon users. It has a royal charter, it has a weekly market, it has more than 3,000 residents, therefore by both old and new rules regarding town status in the UK it is a town, not a village. I will get a definitive answer once I've been down to the Centre for Buckinghamshire Studies tomorrow. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 22:20, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Counties policy

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I agree that what is written at Wikipedia: Naming conventions (places)#Counties of Britain as it currently stands is sensible. I haven't specifically bothered to check which part of that text was added when, but I'm agreeing with it now and the history is not important. ,,,Trainspotter,,, 11:55, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards

I have drafted a proposal for a new voluntary association on Wikipedia (joining groups like the Wikipedia:The Business and Economics Forum and the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club) to promote discussion of a sort of system of expert review on Wiki. Please take a look and add your ideas. 172 08:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Counties

Excellent! Morwen - Talk 20:38, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yep. Don't forget Berkshire too, which has the same status. Morwen - Talk 20:42, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I hate to disagree, but I don't find the changes you have just made to Berkshire, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire and possibly other counties not on my watchlist, particularly helpful. If those counties are still legally administrative counties, then this is a legal quirk and probably no more than a legislative drafting error. Certainly in the normal English usage of of the word administrative, they are not administrative counties as they do not have an administrator or administration and are not administered as a unit. I think the average reader of Wikipedia, especially one not familiar with English local government, is going to read the changed entries and come to completely the wrong conclusion, that the counties are administered by some non-elected entity in place of a council. -- Chris j wood 21:47, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

All of those counties still are used for administration as a unit to some extent, just not via a county council, if you read Tyne and Wear for example it explains the situation quite well, and that was written by a councillor. Perhaps something similar should be written for South Yorkshire, west Yorkshire et al to explain the situation. G-Man 21:52, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started the Free the Rambot Articles Project which has the goals of getting users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to...

1. ...all U.S. state, county, and city articles...
2. ...all articles...

using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) version 1.0 and 2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to the GFDL (which every contribution made to Wikipedia is licensed under), but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles (See the Multi-licensing Guide for more information). Since you are among the top 1000 most active Wikipedians, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles.

Nutshell: Wikipedia articles can be shared with any other GFDL project but open/free projects using the incompatible Creative Commons Licenses (e.g. WikiTravel) can't use our stuff and we can't use theirs. It is important to us that other free projects can use our stuff. So we use their licenses too.

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template (or {{MultiLicensePD}} for public domain) into their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} with {{MultiLicensePD}}. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know at my talk page what you think. -- Ram-Man 21:27, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

RFC pages on VfD

Should RFC pages be placed on VfD to be deleted? I'm considering removing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Slrubenstein, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Kenney from WP:VFD. Each of them was listed by CheeseDreams. Your comments on whether I should do this would be appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:42, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

License ?

Hi, can you confirm to me that your picture Image:Godiva 450.jpg is GFDL ? thanks in advance. Tipiac 14:32, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oxford Canal

Hi G-Man, we're near neighbours (I live a few miles from Rugby).

Thanks for the additions to the Oxford Canal article. I've added a bit more and corrected one or two points. I'm sure there's lots more to say on the subject and it'd be nice to add a photo or two, perhaps of Hilmorton? Andy F 01:20, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi G-man, very nice photo of Hilmorton. It shows all the most interesting features of the location. I've added a bit more to the caption. Andy F 22:14, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ukrailways.wikicites.com

I've started a new wiki at wikicities to concentrate on the history of railways in the UK. This will in time, hopefully, provide a space to greatly expand on what is available on wikipedia. For example, individual pages for locomotives, signal boxes and the like. I've picked on you as a likely contributor from looking at the edit history for the Great Western Railway and then at your personal edit history.

At the moment I am busy seeding the wiki with pages from wikipedia, with a few minor edits, before annoucing its existance to the wider railway world. I'm contacting a few people who seen to edit railway articles on wikipedia at first, as they are already enthusiastic about the wiki system. I would be interested in you views on how I can move it forward and the structure of the wiki. I'll keep an eye on this talk page, my talk page or you could email me at richard_bedwell@hotmail.com

Revering traditional county references

Why are you reverting all my traditional county references? I make it plain that's what they are and I'm leaving the administrative information alone. This is [b]additional informaton[/b] that harms no-one. This is the same stance used by Britannica. In any case there are categories for traditional counties and county towns that were not created by me that I am merely populating. I do not like the tone of your comment "I'm not telling you again Owain this is not acceptable". I have never had a 'warning' from you about this and a fail to see why you think it is 'not acceptable'. Please refrain from removing useful information from articles (especially those that are marked as stubs in need of additional information).

Owain 10:21, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nice?

Why is it so nice? --82.3.32.71 00:22, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well I surpose it is just its general niceness and general lack of un-niceness. Does that answer your question? G-Man 21:10, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good stuff!

Hi G-man, just thought i commend you on the pics added to bham music, they fit well with the article. Nick Boulevard 16:34, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)