Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 2

message: I'm at risk of opening a real can of worms here, but I guess it's best not to ignore the issue.  I've been doing some work on the suburbs of Southampton lately and I thought I should get some comments about which "areas" merit an article of their own, if there are any guidelines, etc.  I'm sure the situation in Southampton is mirrored across the country, so it's probably worth getting some thoughts here.
At present, the articles relate to loosely-defined areas (i.e. it would be hard to draw distinct boundaries around them) which would be recognised by some locals, but don't necessarily have any official status.  I'm happy with the status quo, but I'm aware that the amiguity could lead to problems later.
An alternative would be to use parishes to define the areas.  In Southampton's case, this would lead to the Portswood article being merged into Highfield, Townhill Park into Swaythling or Bitterne Park (I'm not sure which at the moment!), and so on - even though many locals see these as distinct areas in their own right.
Another alternative is to use postcodes.  I used to live in the Palmers Green area of London, and the local concensus at the time was that Palmers Green was defined by the London N13 postcode (and not the Parish of Palmers Green).  I notice that, looking at the current article for this area and its neighbours (such as Southgate), this convention hasn't been followed and there's a much more ambiguous definition.  (For example, Broomfield Park which is in the N13 area, and in the Palmers Green parish, and locally recognised as being part of Palmers Green, is listed in the Southgate article's introduction as part of Southgate!)
Another inconsistency is with villages, when there are several villages within the same parish.  Sometimes each village has an article of its own, and sometimes they are together (as in Compton and Shawford).
Considering that part of our project at the moment is looking at ensuring that we have an article for each civil parish, and there's also an article for many London postcodes, I'm concerned that there's going to be either a lot of repetition across articles or a lot of stubby articles if we continue without setting up some conventions.
So to recap, there are three options that I've suggested (and possibly more that you might think of) and it would be great to reach some concensus on how small areas like these should be handled:
# Status quo - no rigid definitions, lots of ambiguity, possibly lots of arguments over boundaries but allows flexibility where needed and requires no clean-up.
# Use civil parishes; merge sub-areas of civil parishes into the main parish articles, making sure adequate redirects are in place where necessary.  May go against some local instincts but gives solid definitions of what's where and redirects would ensure that users are taken to the correct article(s).
# Use postcode areas to define suburbs etc.
Any thoughts? Waggers 10:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I've done is create seperate articles for the parish and villages in the case of where a parish contains several villages such as Brandon and Bretford and Bourton and Draycote. In cases where a parish is named after one village but contains others I've split the article into sections covering the village and parish (see Leamington Hastings and Wolfhampcote). That's my way of doing things, hope that helps. G-Man * 19:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that is helpful.  I guess the equivalent for urban areas is the status quo, so that saves a lot of effort too!  I think what I need to do is make sure that where a suburb or village gives its name to a parish (which also includes other suburbs/villages), to ensure that this is mentioned in the article.  I  think I'll go with that - thanks for your input. Waggers 09:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had similar problems with the villages in the Chew Valley, Somerset. I've done short articles for defined villages even though they might be parts of the same parish eg Stowey and Bishop Sutton which are both parts of Stowey Sutton where there is a disambiguation page. Pensford is in the civil parish of Publow - even though Pensford is far bigger & much more likely to be searched for. I'm confused by this & I'm sure other users might be, it also causes problems when using the 2001 census data (Lower Layer Super Output Areas (LSOAs)) as these are by the wards of the local authority which often cover several villages. I've also had discussion about the area of a valley - the geographers answer is that it must be defined by water catchment area even though local usage includes a wider area (see discussion on Talk:Chew Valley) but this hasn't been an issue with the current FA nomination. Rod 20:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *cough* I'd just thought I'd note here that Southampton doesn't actually have civil parishes, and hasn't had since 1912 (the residual coterminous urban parish of Southampton was abolished in 1974).  Morwen - Talk 14:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suburbs and villages etc.

message: Hello. I'm a member of the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing articles using these criteria, and we are are asking for your help. As you are most aware of the issues surrounding your focus area, we are wondering if you could provide us with a list of the articles that fall within the scope of your WikiProject, and that are either featured, A-class, B-class, or Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Do you have any recommendations? If you do, please post your suggestions at the listing of all active Places WikiProjects, and if you have any questions, ask me in the Work Via WikiProjects talk page or directly in my talk page. Thanks a lot! Titoxd(?!? - help us) 18:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team|Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team]] cooperation 

message: A bunch of UK geography stubs were recently created. I saved them from speedy deletion but they are quite short and could use more information:
*Hornby, Richmondshire
*Graythorpe
*Wath, North Yorkshire
*Hunton, North Yorkshire
*West Hauxwell
Cheers, Fang Aili talk 14:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New stubs 

message: * 
* 
* 
* 
Does anyone have any objection to these having a link to the UK? I've noticed many of the articles often do not have a link to UK anywhere on them. Mrsteviec 13:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a much better layout. I approve wholeheartedly of your version! Owain (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: In what manner does these edits suggest that England, Scotland and Wales are not countries? --Siva1979Talk to me 17:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK infoboxes linking to UK 

message: I'm working on a guide, here, if anybody has any suggestions.  Joe D (t) 10:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The example is fine for somewhere like Northampton, where there is no controversy over its county.  For anywhere where the ceremonial county does not match the administrative arrangements and/or historic county a far more workable consensus is to leave any mention of the county until after the physical geography.  The first sentence would describe the location in terms of physical geography and uncontroversial terms, then a second sentence would give the administrative/ceremonial county first and then the historic one, if different.  Examples of this include Hull and Totley (there are better examples but I can't think of them).  Yorkshire Phoenix 10:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has already been thrashed out: see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(places)#Counties_of_Britain. --Mais oui! 10:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd welcome this guidance especially about unitary authorities where the council is not in a county eg Bath and North East Somerset is not in Somerset as far as local councils etc is concerned - but parts of it are geographically & historically. Another problem is where other organisations use different areas/boundaries examples include;  English Nature is the designating body for SSSI in England, and uses the 1974-1996 county system (Metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties of England), so sites which "should" be in List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Somerset are in List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Avon and English Heritage which uses another system List of English Heritage properties uses "Bristol & Bath" ie the old Avon - I find this all confusing & I'm sure other users do as well - so clear guidance would be useful. — Rod talk 10:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to write about towns and villages 

message: For talk pages to serve the following purposes:
* categorise articles according to WP 1.0
* add to do lists
* advertise the project
 
Where quality and priority are defined here and here.  "map", "pop" and "infobox" refer to whether the article has a map, population data and infobox, and puts those without in a category.  If you set photo it will add to the requested photos category for that county. Joe D (t) 12:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a big fan of .  What is the photo parameter for?  It doesn't seem to do anything.  I have also left a request at Template talk:WPUKgeo  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New template

message: Hi Folks.  OpenStreetMap are having a mapping party in Rutland over the weekend of October 14/15, 2006.  Our plan is to make a map of the whole county in a weekend.  We currently expect around 10 to 20 people to be there. 
I'd like to invite members of this project, and any other Wikipedian who reads this, to come along and join the fun.  You don't need any special skills or equipment and anyone to turns up could choose to help with the mapping or just add some more content to the pages about Rutland and it's villages on Wikipedia.
More details are at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/WikiProject_Rutland_England. 
:80N 15:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a look at Geograph (link) before you go. Most of the county, at least as far as villages go, seems to be fairly well covered, and the images can be reused on Wikipedia under the Creative Commons licence. --Blisco 10:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably anything in the Places of Interest section which doesn't have an entry/photo ie:
*Barnsdale Gardens
*Burley on the Hill
*Clipsham Hall 
*Lyddington Bede House   
*Normanton Hall 
*Oakham Buttercross
*Oakham "Castle"	
*Rutland County Museum, Oakham 
*Rutland Railway Museum, Cottesmore 
*Rutland Water 
*Tolethorpe Hall 
*Wardley Wood 
*Whissendine Windmill
— Rod talk 15:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OpenStreetMap invites this project to a party 

message: There are at least a dozen people from OpenStreetMap who will be on the ground in Rutland next weekend for the mapping party.  Rutland is COTM for October. If anyone needs specific information, photographs or anything else about the county, or any of its towns or villages please list your needs here. 80N 10:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a look at Geograph (link) before you go. Most of the county, at least as far as villages go, seems to be fairly well covered, and the images can be reused on Wikipedia under the Creative Commons licence. --Blisco 10:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably anything in the Places of Interest section which doesn't have an entry/photo ie:
*Barnsdale Gardens
*Burley on the Hill
*Clipsham Hall 
*Lyddington Bede House   
*Normanton Hall 
*Oakham Buttercross
*Oakham "Castle"	
*Rutland County Museum, Oakham 
*Rutland Railway Museum, Cottesmore 
*Rutland Water 
*Tolethorpe Hall 
*Wardley Wood 
*Whissendine Windmill
— Rod talk 15:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rutland wanted list

message: There was an excellent turnout for the weekend.  We got GPS logs for virtually every road.  So far 30 out of ~50 villages have been comprehensively mapped, including both towns - Oakham and Uppingham.  I have a few photos, but had battery problems, so not as many as I would have hope to get.  I'll update the appropriate villages pages as and when I get some time. We are doing Surrey Hills next weekend if anyone is interested. 80N 22:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: If anyone wants me to, I'll do place-name meanings in the articles, this could be helpful. --TheM62Manchester 10:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Place-name meanings 

message: Have we got it written down anywhere that we use miles first (and km second) for UK articles? Mrsteviec 19:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If not, then we should! Owain (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Wikipedia wide policy is that we have distances in both metric and imperial, but which comes first is an issue for individual pages (somebody may come and prove me wrong on this though).  Unless anybody objects (I don't) you can add this to the county and settlement guidelines.  Joe D (t) 21:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well considering roadsigns across the UK are marked in miles, I think that's the way the articles relating to places should be. To include kilometres in brackets should be optional, or standard. But certainly miles first. --Mal 06:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Is there a UK-related Manual of Style in existence? --Mal 15:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  miles (km) 

message: I have added a new maps option to  (others may wish to copy it to the other UK infoboxes).  The new fields:
 |LocalMap=        Dorset
 |LocalMapX=       110
 |LocalMapY=       50
 |UKMapX=          72
 |UKMapY=          140
Can be used instead of the Map, Image or MapX/Y fields.  You can see it at work on Wimborne Minster.
A few notes:
* This uses , which is a smaller thumbnail than that used for the MapX/Y fields, therefore it will require different coordinates.
* The local map is named "4dot.png".  So far I have only made a map for Dorset.  If you wish to use this in your local area you may need to make a map.  I modified the numbered districts map for the ceremonial county found on the county's page -- quick and easy.
* I don't have the software to save .SVG files.  Somebody might like to convert the maps and modify  accordingly?
Joe D (t) 15:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Will this work for places in Northern Ireland? --Mal 00:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not yet, this is just the English Infobox.  However, the code can be copied to the other home nations infoboxes (might need modifying: I'm not sure if all of NI and Scotland are covered by the map -- certainly Shetland is cut off). Joe D (t) 12:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New infobox maps option 

message: I am an English speaking editor and resident of Llandudno but (like most of us) I know perfectly well how to pronounce the name of that town. If a reader is a trained linguist he may also know how to pronounce it. However, if in doubt the IPA may well be a help in pointing an inquirer towards correct pronunciation. At the moment this occasionally valuable information tends to occupy that crucial first paragraph of many articles about places outside England (or even within). It would therefore be a very great help to have a place for 'pronunciation' in the info box, Is this possible? NoelWalley 19:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that, there doesn't seem to be a best place. Perhaps following 'historic county' under 'other' might be suitable?  Regards NoelWalley 07:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Info Box - Llandudno and other Welsh Towns

message: I see the schools are back.  The amount of twelve year olds vandalising articles about their home towns has shot up today ;) -- Joe D (t) 16:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try being told off by your school because you created an article on them... -- Dev920 23:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did they really tell you off for that? I think your teachers should learn a bit about wikipedia. Tell them to read the Wikipedia:Schools FAQ. -- Nojer2 15:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow... 

message: Given it is now September, might it be a good idea to update your proposed goals by June on your front page? Dev920 23:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: I was wondering about being bold and simply listing a comparatively minor potential sub-project - Wikipedia:WikiProject King George's Fields - on the main project page.  But two things struck me.  The first that it would be impolite to assume that this project would be at all interested in having a sub-project, and the second was that I was not sure quite where to list it.
The project is a mixture of history and geography.  The King George's Fields, themselves are a monument, are a huge monument, to the UK's King George V.  They are geographically dispersed, and there are 471 of them in the UK, with a very few in foreign climes.  I have realised the enormity of trying to do this all myself, though have made reasonable progress.  I am currently developing the project page itself, so thee will be a few edits to it to get it set up properly.
Even if you do not feel that it has a place here as a sub-project you may wish individually to put some time towards it.  Fiddle Faddle 18:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks like a very good candidate for a sub-project.  Go ahead and get it started.  If you want maps for it you could create a special project on OpenStreetMap as well.  Here's the place to set up projects for special subjects: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/OpenStreetMap:Community_Portal#Specialised_Subjects.  80N 10:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I am started.  I have also left a message on the Openstreet,ap talk page asking for help with protocol (etc) there There are only so many wikis one can play with.  Fiddle Faddle 11:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential sub-project - King George's Fields 

message: On a successful Good Article review. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Congratulations to [[Weymouth, Dorset|Weymouth]]

message: Last month, Corsham was tagged as stub-class by WP 1.0 quality criteria.  Steinsky and I made some major upgrades in the last 24 hours.  I am not sure if there is a process for upgrading it to a B-Class, so I just changed the tag (at Talk:Corsham).  However, as I was a contributing editor, that is a conflict of interest, so perhaps a WikiProject UK geography member would like to take a look.  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is [[Corsham]] a B-Class article yet?

message: The Resources and guidelines, Guidelines section has contradictory advice about infoboxes. There is a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements, which recommends the use of Template:Infobox England place. The section also recommends the use a different infobox on Talk:List of places in England. Alan Pascoe 22:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No-one appears to have a view on this matter, so I'll go ahead and make the changes needed to remove the inconsistencies. Alan Pascoe 14:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory guidance about infoboxes 

message: There is a discussion taking place on Talk:Cornwall about the use of the England place infobox in Cornwall articles. Alan Pascoe 20:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the England place infobox in Cornwall articles 

message: Oddly, the Milton Keynes article hasn't been rated. It would be great to get it up to FA in time for its 40th birthday in January 2007, but that needs to start with a list of what needs to change to get it there.  Comments welcome at Talk:Milton Keynes --Concrete Cowboy 17:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milton Keynes 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.   B2T2 17:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm interested in joining the UK geo project - specifically for editting articles in Greater Manchester. However, is this project effectively defunkt (hope that does not offend if it is not)? I'm seeing little progress being made, and alot of the tasks etc are outdated. This leads me to believe this project needs a push and a little leadership being taken. Jhamez84 23:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: Further to my comment above... I've contributed significantly and worked hard on the UK geo article that is Shaw and Crompton town in Greater Manchester. I would like it to become a good article and have requested a peer review to improve the article. The response has been poor to say the least... I'm hoping the UK geo project would be more interested in leaving feedback with regards to how to improve this article further. Hope someone is willing to help (and may sway my opinion as to my comments above the S&C subtitle), Jhamez84 23:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shaw and Crompton 

message: These Lists of United Kingdom locations by name contain coordinates , with <nowiki>{{<nowiki>title d}} these can add geographical links to any pages on UK locations. GameKeeper 22:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: UK places coords

message: There is an attempt to create a consensus for a change in the present custom on names of Borough articles at Wikipedia talk:List of English districts to disambiguate.  Please contribute.  --Concrete Cowboy 21:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Borough of X' versus 'X (borough)' 

message: Bath is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 19:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bath lost it's featured article status - there is now a survey on Talk:Bath about renaming the city to either "Bath (city)" or "Bath, Somerset" to enable the thing you wash in to have the article title "Bath". Those with expertise in UK naming conventions might wish to vote/comment.— Rod talk 14:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Bath]]

message: Some of you may be aware of the current mess and ciruclar editing going on with Wigan, Billinge and associated famous people being from/not from the area.  I am trying to resolve them by spliting Wigan and Metropolitan Borough of Wigan which I believe is appropriate.  The issue is that anon IP after anon IP is basically changing the entries to whatever their POV is.  I would try and engage in a constructive debate, but seeing as people have been called "prat" and so on, it would just go around in circles again.  I would like to achieve a consesus so that we can stop this circular editing, and wondered if any other editors had an opinion?  Regan123 23:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what the issues are with Wigan, but we've had similar problems with the "Notable people from Southampton" list.  There was already a Sotonians category, and the list on the Southampton article was overly long and unwieldly, and in danger of duplicating the category.  We achieved concensus on the talk page to keep the list on the article as short as we could, possibly rotating through some of the people in the category.  We placed a note in the article code to that effect, stating that any additions to the list should be discussed on the talk page first and achieve concensus.  Any changes to the list without discussion are treated as vandalism and reverted.  This approach seems to work fairly well. Waggers 11:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been trying to get a compromise going but every time we get close some edits are made and the whole cycle starts again.  Apart from continuing to wikify articles there is an ongoing circular edit war going on.  Neither side is prepared to compromise and I don't think they will agree to an arbitration.  Are there some experienced editors who could come over to Talk:Wigan and lend a hand?  Thanks, Regan123 22:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wigan]] and surrounding areas 

message: Please come to Talk: Hyde, Greater Manchester and give your views on the proposed move. -- Beardo 16:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hyde, Greater Manchester]] 

message: Hi. I found a couple categories that appear to be redundant, but I thought it might be a good idea to run it past you guys before nominating them for a merger. There's :Category:History of England by locality and also the more recently created :Category:Histories of cities in England. Should they be merged? If so, which one should stay? - EurekaLott 17:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't disagree with a merger.  History of England by locality strikes me as the one that should survive. Regan123 17:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: In the interests of demonstrating consensus, I agree totally with Regan123. Waggers 09:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this going ahead? --Regan123 01:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate categories? 

message: Just a query, is this WP:UK or only about the geography...? Simply south 23:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends how strict you're being about the definition of "geography" - the project includes articles about places (cities, towns, villages etc.) which include historical, cultural and other sections, as well as purely geographical features (hills, mountains, rivers, etc.).  The project doesn't cover articles on British people, organisations or event (other than those which are included in geographical articles of course) so is not WP:UK.  Those are all my perceptions, other editors may think differently.  Hope that helps, Waggers 09:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject 

message: Hi - I've been trying to go through various articles and (mainly) templates to see if :Image:Flag_of_England_%28bordered%29.svg should replace :Image:Flag_of_England.svg - it's very time-consuming as I don't have any special software like popups or know how to program a bot.  If anyone does, please could you give me a hand - thanks!! — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 01:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Flag_of_England_%28bordered%29.svg]] —vs— [[:Image:Flag_of_England.svg]] 

message: Interested editors may like to look at Category Talk:Merseyside, where there is a discussion ongoing about how to name categories for local government districts.Regan123 14:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category Naming 

message: I hope I haven't trodden on any toes by doing this, but I took as a precedent the project about Cornwall. I've listed a proposed project concerning Cheshire on Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. I think it can easily co-exist with this project, which I would not want to diminish or withdraw from myself at all. If you are interested in contributing to this, please add your name to list at the appropriate place. If you think it might be better placed as a sub-project of this project, please say so, and let us discuss it. Many thanks.  DDStretch  talk 17:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the support shown, I thought it useful to create an initial project page for Cheshire. It can be seen here. Obviously, I think it will be necessary for any project to continue to liase with this and other related projects, and so I was wondering what to do about the templates currently created by this project which are specific to Cheshire? Could someone just move them over to the Cheshire project? Once again, I do not want to cause any disagreement between this project and the Cheshire project at all.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Project (or sub-project) for Cheshire 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.  Badbilltucker 21:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: The Template :Template:GBthumb2 shows the dot in an incorrect position. The main problem is that it varies between web browsers. I have reproduced screenshots to demonstrate. Now [Image:WimbourneMinsterMapBug.jpg|center]]
The question is can we fix it or do we start replacing all the maps? We cannot leave it as it is. MortimerCat 01:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'vwe noticed this bug with both Cranleigh and Camberley, which are both shown as almost on the south coast rather than where they should be. My browser is IE6. JH 22:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GBthumb2 bug 

message: I've had a go at trying to bring the Altrincham article into a recognised guideline format for places.  Could somebody please please take a look at it and decide whether it can stop being a stub or tell us how what needs to happen for it to stop being a stub.  It's recognised that more work needs to be done on citation but it was important to work on the format first and get people focused on improving the article and off the never-ending debate about naming conventions.  I've changed the format of the discussion page to try and focus attention on improvement - hope this is OK. Cosmopolitancats 11:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blimey. That article is distinctly unstubby.  It needs work, but it's not been a stub for a long time.  I briefly wondered what you meant here, but I noticed that the project template on the talk page still said 'stub class'.  I've taken the liberty of reclassifying.  It wouldn't achieve GA status, but it's certainly not a stub either.  I've never rated an article in this field before, so a project member may like to check it over. — mholland 11:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - I'd still appreciate guidance as to what is required re adequate citation in some areas.  Everything I've added today has been referenced and I feel that the reference to lack of citation is now unwarranted.  Granted it still needs work but further citation needs guidance relevant to places.Cosmopolitancats 13:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the unreferenced tag.  Your judgment is as good as anyone else's as far as the referencing goes.  You're probably correct in thinking that the article as a whole probably no longer justifies the tag, but there are a few s that need sourcing still on the article.  If you want further advice on improving the article, you can open it up to Peer Review. — mholland 14:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Altrincham

message: This is really interesting. Being new to this site, but love thinking about economics, geography, urban and rural society in Britain, etc, wondering where to start. In a few sentences, where would people suggest I start editing - pick a county or city where knowledge is strong, or roam around looking for errors, or do something around a specific theme? Suggestions appreciated! Thanks from a total newbie. CreativeLogic 22:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to start? 

message: There is a small edit war occurring with English Heritage in Cornwall. A Cornish protest group is putting a biased (in my opinion) section in all of the Cornish sites, see list here, and a section in the main English Heritage article. Could a few independant people pop along, and express their opinion please.    Putney Bridge 00:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest that the sign-removal case is notable in the context of those sites actually involved (i.e. those mentioned in the BBC report), but probably not notable in the wider context of the article English Heritage itself, and bordering on totally irrelevant to those articles dealing with sites which were not targets of the group's campaign.  Is there anywhere in particular you'd like me to express this opinion?  :)  — mholland 02:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  English Heritage 

message: On the project page there are guidelines for writing about countries & settlements, but there are loads of UK geography articles about other areas eg rivers, SSSIs hills, lakes, caves etc & we don't have any guidelines for these - does anyone think this would be useful? I was looking for these in the hope of getting some guidance to get Mendip Hills up to FA status & have looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject British and Irish hills but would appreciate other ideas.— Rod talk 10:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writing about areas which aren't settements 

message: I'm new to this, but I've had a go at improving the article on Amersham in Buckinghamshire. If anyone has a minute to pass comment on what I've done before I wade into it more fully I'd be very grateful. I would say that I don't regard the content I've added so far as necessarily the most important, merely the most accessible to me as a starting point.Milton25 22:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made many additions to Amersham now, mainly by taking ideas for elements of the article from other articles about British towns. Comments much appreciated. Milton25 09:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amersham 

message: Just bringing to everyones attention a deletion request for the England and Wales article. Please join in the discussion.  MortimerCat 23:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mentioned there its use as a statistical entity - which needs putting in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Totnesmartin (talk • contribs) 13:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  England and Wales 

message: Thanks to many of you for your expert guidance and edits of Mendip Hills. I have now put it up as a Featured Article Candidate & comments, support or opposition is being recorded at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mendip Hills.— Rod talk 11:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mendip Hills FAC 

message: A new infobox has been developed for use on UK places articles. If you have any concerns or appraisals, please make them at Template talk:Infobox UK place. Regards, Jhamez84 01:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already made it plain that I do not support the dropping of the historic county field, but my objections have been ignored. If this is supposed to replace the existing templates it absolutely needs to provide the same information as the previous ones or a lot of editors are going to be very annoyed. Owain (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus can change. It has. consensus has been assessed three times in response to your complaints, and in each case, the new consensus was not to your liking.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Infoboxes 

message: :Image:EH icon.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:EH icon.png