Talk:Shaw and Crompton/Archive 1

message: Just writing to ask that editors kindly keep the link to the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham as just that. Oldham is a town within this Borough as is Shaw & Crompton, rather like how Ashton is in the borough of Tameside. Please be mindful of this confusion. Thank you. -- Jhamez84 17:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Metropolitan Borough

message: First things first: User:213.122.87.239, please sign the end of all your posts using ~~~~. If you get an account too, you get access to more useful editing features.
Please keep all discussion regarding Shaw and Crompton and Crompton House on this page from now on please, there is no point duplicating content elsewhere.
This "debate" is an old hatchet on WP, and has been pretty much resolved.  Before making any further contributions, I would expect you to have read the official naming conventions for WP, and for your own interest at the discussions and even more discussions that led up to them.
The conventions give a number of test cases, including:
:Southwark is a village in the London Borough of Southwark in Greater London. It is in the traditional borders of Surrey
The current metropolitan borough and metropolitan county are stated in full first.
Either way, Shaw and Crompton is part of the metropolitan borough of Oldham. Noone is saying it is in the town of Oldham (look, they even have separate articles).  You may view that Shaw is only part of the metropolitan borough for purely administrative purposes if you so wish, but a part of the borough it is all the same.  WP has chosen to use the administrative divisions for geographical demarcation; for better or worse, this is the convention we all must use.
The gazetteer you cite above is not an official document either (it is from a fairly insignificant pressure group - see Association of British Counties and the corresponding talk pages for more information).
You may include a reference to Shaw's historical position in the traditional, historical or geographical county of Lancashire in addition if you wish, but Shaw's position of one of the seven boroughs is a verifiable fact (regardless of anybody's CV), and I will edit the article to reflect this.
Hope this helps Aquilina 11:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: I would have to agree with Aquilina, however the debate was a very stimulating read! 
When I was in the army, I had to join the Kings regiment (Manchester) because I was from Shaw, rather than the Queens regiment for Lancashire. 
User:213.122.87.239, also says that we should go to our town halls to discover our real county.... this is an interesting point as Shaw does not have a town hall (nor really does Oldham if you disclude the Civic Centre!).
I now teach history at the University of Salford, (and added much of the historic content of the Shaw and Crompton article) and would concur that if we were to use Lancashire, this would not reflect the truth. Lancashire is an idealic, but medieval conception, where Lancaster is the capital city. Also the old Lancashire would also include Merseyside - no Liverpudlian would ever argue they are still in Lancashire over Merseyside.
I sympathise with those such as the people of Saddleworth who do not want to be part of modern counties or metropolitan borough systems, particularly that of Oldham Metropolitan Borough, but whilst it is verifiable fact it must remain on Wiki. 
Thanks for your contributions however.
86.133.74.16 12:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Opinion

message: 1) If you refer to published encyclopaedias they will refer to the county or region.  It would be better and more professional to retain this link with with vetted encylopaedias rather than the opinions of amateurs on the internet with liberal agendas.
:Yes, they will - as well as the metropolitan borough it is part of! We're not saying the mentions of the county or region should be removed, but the borough should be mentioned as well. That "Shaw and Crompton" exists as an offical entity within the metropolitan borough is a verifiable fact; that "Crompton House" is a school in the MBO is a verifiable fact (it has Oldham in its web adress for that very reason!); you have no grounds upon which to remove these statements.
:As for agendas, you have already stated that yours is based your worries on what a potential employer may think if they found out that your school was close to Oldham.  What's my agenda?
2) Nobody else in the country knows where Oldham Metropolitan Borough (although they may now since the Asian riots).  Most people have an intuitive knowledge where the traditional counties are located, so I do not understand why you wish to make locating such towns such a difficult task.
:Yes people have an intuitive knowledge of the traditional counties; references are included to that as well.  For those who do have some knowledge of the area, knowing that Shaw and Crompton is near Oldham helps them pin it down even better.  Why does it have to be either/or?  Oldham is a large conurbation of national repute, it is extremely nearby, and the towns of Shaw and Crompton are partially administered from there. There is absolutely no good reason not to include a mention of it in this article.
3)  Most people in Shaw & Crompton and Saddleworth do not associate themselves with Oldham anymore.  Why should their cultural identity be ignored?
:Even if you proved this, which you have not, this does not negate the fact that the township is within the borough as stated.  Even if the residents find this unfortunate, it is still a verifiable fact and should be included.  If you do find truly verifiable evidence that Shaw residents feel this way (ie with cited reliable sources), feel free to add the material into the article - but even then the facts in the first paragraph would still stand.
4)  How democratic is this decision process?  It just seems to me that a few registered users have made up their minds without taking a reasonble sized poll.
:If you read all the references I cited above, you would understand this was a long-running issue, which was fiercely debated by many, many users for a considerable length of time.  That the naming conventions I referenced are so carefully worded is no accident; and neither is the fact that they are carefully enforced.  Quite simply, they are the only version upon which a considerable consensus could be reached.
:The convention is there for a very good reason. Even if you don't agree with it (and even I do not agree with all parts of it), you still have to abide by it.  I've you don't agree with it, but want your edit to stand I'm afraid you will have to go the long way round - by changing the convention itself. You can't just edit articles in a way which contravenes it.
:As for "democracy" and "polls" you may like to read the official policy WP:NOT - especially Wikipedia is not a democracy, and also the article Polls are evil.
I am not satisified that the decision has been given due care so will remove mention to OMB for the time being until each of my points are democratically defeated in a proper consultation
:You'll be surprised at the amount of due care that goes into edits.  Just look back at the number of links to extra information and policies I have given in my posts, and that will give you some idea for the care on my part.  
:As before, wikipedia is not a democracy - basically, if an edit is verifiably true, then it stands (to within the limits stated on WP:V, and pages such as WP:RS etc.) , and that is the case here. You have not demonstrated that Shaw and Crompton is not part of the MBO, and I'm exceedingly doubtful that you will(!)  
:We are all here to make edits on WP within the guidelines and conventions.  Please take particular note of WP:3RR - further deletions of the reference may result in your IP being blocked from editing.
:I am no fan of OMB either, but it does not change the facts of the matter. Wikipedia is not my soapbox Aquilina 16:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response - please read the links, too

message: There is a strong debate about how to refer to places in Britain, which is exactly why we have the conventions, and why they are enforced.  It avoids this conflict on every single UK geographical article.  If you disagree with the conventions you must change the convention, not the articles.
Consensus does not mean specifically agreeing with you.  It is about the agreement of a large body of editors over a long period of time. 
This is not a point of bias, but a point of fact.  You have not justified these deletions satisfactorily (especially given the motives behind them given in your edit summary), and you are leaving the articles out of line of agreed conventions, and the standards set in other articles.  As such, they will be reverted immediately.
Any further reverts in the near future will put you in breach of WP:3RR and will result in your IP being blocked from editing. Aquilina 18:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Repeated reversions

message: Wiki policy dictates here. I concur with Aquilina and Wikipedia. This is not a matter about pride but one of fact. I am writing to emphasise the above about vandlism and blocking all future misleading edits. It really shouldn't come to this. The county and borough boundry dispute has been made and resolved in the past and is no longer a dispute for new unregisterd members to make in article pages. Compliance is now a must. 
Furthermore, all other aliases and IP addresses which revert factual content will have to follow the same process.
(with regard to 201.19.187.39 - a fresh unregistered memeber, you have "Undone vandalism"  (see []) suggesting that you want to include vandalism due to stubborness, assertion and miseducation regarding Wiki policy. Please do not do this). 
Jhamez84 19:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: It appears that the edit war has now calmed somewhat. For those interested, I found the exact Wikipedia policy on town and place naming in Britain and can be found here . 
According to this, following encycolpedic standards (yes the encyclopedia Britanica uses this method!), broad and accepted consensus, and legal positioning, modern Metropolitan boroughs and counties stand as the foremost system which one should use (and quite rightfully so in my opinion) and thus all British location based articles should reflect this. Historic counties from the old system should be placed as a secondary location and with appropriate context for historical interest purposes. 
A note is (this is according to the conventions; I am not being stubborn), modern metropolitan boroughs must not be placed secondary to the "ceremonial" or older county systems in any article. The article must be changed to mirror this.
Please can all past, present and future editors become familiar with this piece of Wiki policy and ammend the main article as necessary and when necessary. Please leave this part of the discussion up as a permenant reminder to all. Thank you for your co-operation Jhamez84 21:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shaw and Crompton Geography Resolution 

message: *http://www.mancuniensis.info/CromptonFP.htm
I found this source regarding some of the ancient (disused?) suburbs and hamlets of the township of Crompton: I've listed it here first for a review as to if it's appropriate for the main Shaw and Crompton article page (the article is getting quite lengthy) or for the smaller article of Crompton (on which the information may get overlooked). Please let me know your thoughts? Jhamez84 16:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suburb/Hamlet Source