User talk:Ddstretch/Archives/2008/December

Ahem, cough...appreciate the difficulty if you're busy with other things though, I know I am.  :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I still have a bit more to do - on parliamentary constituency history, but I need to sort out a seeming inconsistency in the source I have, and other wikipedia articles (and in one case, non-articles) first.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. If you come across anything about Radcliffe High School please let me know, its the one thing stopping me from nominating it for GA now. Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I have again removed the Univerity of Chester site from the list of External Lists, and I ask you to not include it again, as doing so goes against wikipedia guidelines and policies. Read WP:EL, in particular points 3 and 4 of section 1 (Important points to consider) and section 7.2 (References and citation). You will see that these clearly imply that when the University of Chester site has already been linked to (indeed to the exact same page on that site), then a link should not be included in the External Links. In the same context, it is generally looked upon as a good move to try to minimize as many External Links as possible (see references to the points I've already provided), and so some of the ones in that section should be converted if possible into full-blown references and used in the text, thus removing them also from the External Links section.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Pretty typical Wikipedia: a stupid guideline is considered more important than the reader. A reader is clearly going to expect an External Links section to contain a link to the institution in question.

Nevertheless, I note that the guideline says 'include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end and/or in the appropriate location within an infobox' (emphasis mine). I also note that the guideline says that 'common sense' should be used. I am therefore invoking some common sense and restoring the link. - Green Tentacle (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I have asked for additional views on the matter at WP:UKGEO, and I wonder whether you are too easily invoking WP:IAR here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ddstretch (talk • contribs) 00:15, 1 December 2008

That sounds sensible, though I find your assumption that I will simply revert you again offensive. I have to disagree with you on my use of WP:IAR, though. Any rule that states that an external links section should not contain an external link to whatever the article is about is inherently stupid. - Green Tentacle (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is what you have done before, and so it is reasonable. If you deem it offensive, then perhaps you would like to re-assess your own behaviour in the past for similar issues, including this one. Finally, if you feel the rule is inherently stupid, I invite you to make that comment on the talk page of WP:EL, though I suggest you phrase it in a slightly more reasoned manner. In any case, stupid or not, it is not the place to attempt to change how wikipedia works by making changes to individual articles, as that merely becomes pointed editing.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hiya Ddstretch. I noticed the colour grey in the map, has been restored to Ireland (state). These make is appear as though Ireland (state) is a part of France. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind, I understand it now. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

As his nominator, I want to thank you for your additional question on Dravecky (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s successful RfA. Such questions help reviewers better understand the candidate. I look forward to your questions in future RfAs. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to take a moment to say "thank you" for taking the time and effort to ask questions and to participate in my recent RfA. As you may know, the discussion closed 66/0/1 and I'm now a holder of the mop. I will keep working to improve the encyclopedia and appreciate the trust which you have placed in me. - Dravecky (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I have filed this Request for arbitration of Ireland article naming dispute and named you as one of the involved parties. I would appreciate it if you could make a 500-word-or-less statement there. -- Evertype·✆ 19:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

194.125.99.41 is almost certainly Wikipeire, which means you've inadvertently intervened to support edit-warring by a banned sock in the British Isles article. Accordingly, I'm just letting you know that intend to revert to Republic of Ireland.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mooretwin (talk • contribs)

Actually, please do so in these circumstances: an admin (semi-)protects a page as it is found, and makes no distinction between different versions being edit-warred over in choosing when to semi-protect.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention on the User Talk:89.167.221.3 issue - if you do feel the need to implement another block in case the quantity of vandalism becomes unmanageable, just a quick reminder that it might be a good idea to make it anononly and leave account creation on. I'm sure you've read the talk page (and possibly the thread on AN), but just making sure any possible loose ends are tied up. I still haven't worked out the best place to go to about this, clearly there is a problem at the WP end but I'm not sure where. Brilliantine (talk) 10:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I had read the discussions this morning after I had denied the original appeal last night, and I realised that what seems to have been discovered means that it may seriously disadvantage editors if another block, or even another anonymous block, was issued until the matter gets resolved. I did, however, think it was most important to formally log each incident of vandalism so that this could be called on to argue effectively for treating the problem with the greatest of urgency by whoever is doing the reporting. That's why I'm just sticking at repeating "level 4 warnings" if I notice any other vandalism for now. I haven't much idea of who to report this to, but I think some messages on WP:AN may alert someone who could know who to ask.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks very much. I started a thread on AN earlier, not much seems to have come of it yet but we'll see if any further ideas arise. It's quite irregular, I can't remember anything like this happening quite so suddenly before. BTW I have your talk page watchlisted :) Brilliantine (talk) 10:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You may be interested in an all-encompassing compromise proposal tabled in respect of the Ireland naming dispute at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force#Appeal_for_an_all-encompassing_solution Mooretwin (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I've already made a comment about it, in the hope that as strong a case can be made in its favour, this allowing us to evaluate it as best as possible against other possibilities: so long as we all remain calm and reject any attempts to drag personalised and oter unhelpful means of commenting, let us hope that it gets a "good run for its money".  DDStretch  (talk) 12:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

My sandbox page has been deleted, because it says I vandalised a page called Rhea (mythology). I've never vandalised anything on wikipedia and I havent even heard of a rhea. My sandbox page was a school project with important information I have to give in next week, is there any way you could restore my data please? - User:Andygray110

I'm not sure what is happening here: I blocked an anonymous user because of vandalism to Rhea (mythology), and had never heard of your account until you left the message, above, for me. I've managed to find a version of the sandbox from earlier in the day and restrored it. Does that help at all? Sorry about this: there are some major issues with IP addresses from within the UK at the moment. Can you always ensure you are logged in when you edit? Finally, can you let me know who your ISP is: the problems seem to be restricted to just two of them, and if you use one of them, it would help people to see the scale of the problem if this is related. Thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you thats great. Yeh no problem at all. Our ISP is talktalk, hope that helps ;) - User:Andygray110

Is there any reason not to just make this an indefinite block? It seems pretty clear to me that the user is going to keep doing the same thing s/he has been doing (or just disappear and never make an edit again) and is going to be blocked indefinitely anyway. The only argument I can think of against using an indefinite block is that once the user is blocked indefinitely s/he will probably create a new sock to edit with...but again, that's probably going to happen anyway, no matter how many times we do shorter blocks...and the Nimbley06 socks are always pretty easy to recognize, so we won't have much trouble tracking the next sock down anyway.

By the way, regarding your studies...好好学习，天天向上！　:) —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 06:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Sorry about the delayed response, I've been busy doing other things. If you think it would be better to indef block the editor, then please do so. There is another editor who seems equally certain to be him: User:Spainton, though some other admins think that allowing him to continue to edit, but reverting him, is a better way of dealing with him. I personally think the best way is for the powers that be to get a greater grip on this, identify who this person actually is in real life, and then use the UK courts, if he is within jurisdiction, to make out an injunction forbidding him to edit, and invoking the Computer Misuse Act if he then does, since the disruption is very great. I doubt they would agree to doing this, however.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Please block Spainton, its just taking too much time to deal with his vandalism --Snowded TALK 12:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Given the uproar that has happened to previous blocks I have imposed (which I still think were justified), I'm reluctant to do this unless the proper warnings have been issued by others, and so I would ask you and others to issue them first if I am to do this.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair point, you take more than your fair share of abuse for doing the right thing! Level 3 just posted --Snowded TALK 12:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The relevant guidance should be here, but I haven't been able to pin anything down yet and need to log off shortly. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Alas, I am also called away for most of the rest of the day now as well.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I saw your comment, and I actually think it was quite in keeping with WP:DIVA. Dead on, in my opinion. - auburnpilot's sock 22:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I'm not exactly happy that he's messing around with things he does not understand (breaking categories by changing the capitals, for example). I've already provided some evidence of what I'm considering a rather intractable nature from Mooretwin on the ArbCom case, but if he keeps it up, I will block him again, or place him under restrictions such as 1RR. Especially with the personal attacks he's throwing, he's fast exhausting your patience, my patience, and apparently others as well. SirFozzie (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It was largely because of his activities on the matter of the ArbCom case that I withdrew from the discussions, as he was stirring up trouble by making wild accusatioons about motives, etc, of anyone who happened to disagree with him. Now I've run into im on these articles about UK geography, and I am loathe to withdraw again, as they are major interests of mine with respect to the Cheshire project I work on. I see he has made a raft of WP:RM requests now, and most of them ignore the fact that there are many examples of the capitalizations he does not favour that can be found on a simple cursory search of online sources, let alone paper sources. I am lodsing patience with the time that dealing with these is going to take up.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Re. the capitals, just because a mistake is oft-repeated does not mean that it is not a mistake. If you look at the legislation you will find the correct form. Mooretwin (talk) 01:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

What is this ArbCom case of which you speak? If I have been the subject of some kind of case, would it not be consistent with natural justice that I be informed of it and invited to make my case? Mooretwin (talk) 01:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You know full well which one is being referred to here, unless your edits are such that you are involved in more than one. You cannot feign ignorance of these kinds of things for much longer without making it appear that you know so little any contributions you make are probably not worth reading. Now I doubt you want this, and I know that isn't the case, and so I suggest you stop this pretense of ignorance. It is on your talk page, so no more of this nonsense!  DDStretch  (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't. Sir Fozzie has referred me to an ArbCom case about Ireland naming. It's not a complaint against me at all. I was merely listed as an involved party. As I noted on my Talk page, your accusation appears to be the result of a misunderstanding. I've asked you to go back to my TAlk page and retract your accusation. I do so again. Mooretwin (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

No retraction is needed, and none is offered. You should read Sir Fozzie's contribution to the case, and see that, he correctly, has criticized your behaviour in the context of that dispute. Now, I ask you to stop posting messages to my talk page, since they are unhelpful and are a distortion of the facts.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

A retraction is needed. You have made unfounded accusations against me. This is very unfair and unbecoming. Mooretwin (talk) 01:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Further, I see no comments about me by Sir Fozzie in the Arbcom case. This is Kafkaesque. Mooretwin (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It is here. -- Evertype·✆ 10:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The relevant page had already been pointed out to Mooretwin on at least two occasions.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't. I was directed to another page, which included no such comments. Mooretwin (talk) 11:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I appeal to you - genuinely - to explain to me on my Talk page the basis of your accusation. I genuinely believe that you accuse me based on a misunderstanding. Mooretwin (talk) 01:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You'll see from my Talk page that the Admin who responded to your and Sir Fozzie's complaint (Sheffield Steel) has acknowledged that your attack on me was the result of a misunderstanding. Perhaps it is time now for you to apologise? Mooretwin (talk) 09:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for not realising that you were being ambiguous, which you should have taken more care about yourself. The remaining criticism of your disruptive behaviour remain.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted. You'll also note that your accusations about me ignoring a page to which I was directed were unfounded, since I was being directed to the wrong page. Mooretwin (talk) 10:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi User:ddstretch you offered some advice here to the above Editor, along with my efforts and they agreed to stop. However, I have now had to post again on their talk page to ask them to stop. Could you offer me some advice on how I should deal with these personal attacks, other than repeating myself and reverting them? --Domer48_'fenian' 15:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Heya, I cleared that entire last discussion from the anon's talk page, hope you don't mind. It's just more trolling and we don't want to give any other users ideas. Just ignoring them is best in cases like this, any legitimate editors can request an account, and the rest are just time sinks. --fvw* 12:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

See the section immediate to this one as well....  DDStretch  (talk) 12:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have just reviewed the block and find it completely injustified

Although there is clearly personal attacks against you, it is equally clear that you provoked

I am not able to log on with my admin account right now but will be doing so tonight

In your comments on that users talk page you mention contacting outside advice.

Can I ask - whom did you contact? And is this a person likely to simply side with you or truly someone independent?

I ask because I have noted it is common now for admins to form cliques to circumvent the advised policies of Wiki

I have also noticed a growing number of British Admins only recommending other British people as admins and it is sad but true fact that there is a growing anti-American stance being taken on Wiki. I believe this article and actions of admins related to it are proof of that. I intend to personally address this issue with the Founder himself but its worth noting here as this article is about England.

I believe the poster who did not sign his name is not British and that is the reason for your reaction, I see no signs of vandalism what so ever, and in fact the comment he responded to is far more historically incorrect, far more inflamatory and is obviously intended to cause a reaction.

Your reaction to that is notable by its absence, and gives weight to the posters claim you are acting on personal motives.

Although this is not related I would also like to know how a "consensus" decided England is a country since I can find no proof of that. I find even the notion it was discussed odd since it is a political and historal fact that England is not a country. How could any consensus find otherwise? Does wiki now use Urban Myth or Emotional outcry in place of facts? I ask this question here because I know you were involved in that discussion at some point and that dicussion should not be locked either.

Unrelated I know but..

217.35.101.76 (talk) 12:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If you really are an administrator, then who are you, and what is your i.d.? Unless that is known, then there is hardly any basis for taking what you claim and what you threaten with any large degree of weight. If you read the messages on the relevant talk page, you will see who I have contacted, as I give the link a period of time ago on the talk page, and that I have also responded. Please take your suspicions of there being some kind of clique elsewhere.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The anon couldn't call his dog & make it believable. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say they're one and the same, or at very best meatpuppets. Want me to warn them about sockpuppetry? I'm happy to do so.

On another note, I'm really keen on drawing up a map for West Yorkshire and Merseyside, akin to this one for Greater Manchester. That way we can be better informed as to what changes happened in 1974. The trouble I'm having is lack of source material. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I think they need both warning and reporting, but I'm not too hot on how to do the reporting. Could you help out there? As for the map, I think it would be a good move as it would help us see what had happened. The fact that there are 31 civil parishes in the local government area, however, suggests to me that the local government area is significantly larger than the old (municipal?) borough which it replaced in 1974, as they tended to be unparished at that stage. I suspect the best that could be done would be to get an OS map which has civil parishes boundaries marked and draw them out. The problem is that it is the 1:25000 scle maps that have those, and that would make the drawing very large and in need of reduction. May be something could be done by looking at the corresponding election maps site which can give an overview which has civil parish boundaries marked in. I'll take a look.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Although one cannot draw a map easily from looking at the election maps website for Leeds with boundaries for Met Boroughs and civil parishes marked in, it is clear on visual inspection that the central area (which I am almost certain was the old Municipal Borough) is small compared with the new boundaries that contain the civil parishes. It is also clear that there are areas of countryside that mark off separate settlements within the City of Leeds local government area, which merely solidifies even more my belief that the two articles must be kept separate.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I've messaged User:Lozleader to see if I can get some source material from which to work from. I'll be away from the PC for a short while, but then I'll take a look at our resident ip/meatpuppet(s). --Jza84 |  Talk  18:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I've left them a message. Hopefully that does the trick. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why my recent edits to the Salt Mine info have resulted in the lower parts of the page (everything below Notables) disappearing. It happened as a result of giving a ref to the mine in NI. Any thoughts? Rhodian (talk) 12:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I've had this happen to me before a number of time on various articles. Typically, my mistake has been to get the format of any references I've inserted wrong, and usually it is the closing of the references, either the </ref> tag or somethinill similar. If the error is still there, I'll take a look and see if it is something like that which I can spot. It will be a common mistake, I imagine, so nothing major to get concerned about too much.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

WEll, I spotted an omitted closing ref tag, which I suspected might be the problem. I used the last version you were editing before you reverted changes, twice, as the one to look at, and it might be an idea to check to make sure I didn't miss anything else. You may like to consider using the Temeplate:Cite or Template:Citation templates, as at the moment, the refs you have added don't quite meet the standard required for wikipedia, and the templates help you get the formatting of the information right. I hope this helps.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help -- the fix has worked. I've had a look the Template:Citation template and I'm puzzled. Although the intro says it's for "citing books, periodicals, contributions in collective works, patents, and web-sites", it doesn't actually say how a website should be cited / formatted. Am I missing something? --Rhodian (talk) 13:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I normally use {{cite web}}. Though I understand that Citation can be used, I've not yet made the switch, so I can't help you. To see how "cite web" is used, you can try looking at the source of various articles such as United Kingdom, where you can see references a bit like:

<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1993/Ukpga_19930038_en_2.htm |title=Welsh Language Act 1993 |publisher=Office of Public Sector Information |accessdaymonth=3 September|accessyear=2007}}</ref>

and

<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.eurolang.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2449&Itemid=52&lang=en |title=Eurolang - Language Data - Scots |publisher=Eurolang.net |date= |accessdate=2008-11-02}}</ref>

They may give you an idea of how to use "cite web". The way of entering dates is a bit variable and not standardized, but you should get what is meant here, I hope. I hope that helps.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I did say I can't stand going here. A stright forward breech, and looks what it turns into? However, if I have to go there, I suppose I'll have to. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

what "last warning"? this is my first time writing a SINGLE SENTENCE not even on the article itself but on the TALK PAGE, and what in the world were the disruptive edits?! if you come with these kind of messages that resemble a verbal threat and therefore a personal attack , i will make sure to report your abusive talk.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Your talk page is littered with warnings and advice about improper language being used. The message you posted was immediately after a quite inappropriate message from an anonymous editor using quite unacceptable language, to which I warned everyone not to use such language, and yet you immediately posted a message which made use of similar inappropriate language. The warning is in my opinion, quite justified, and no hyperbole which attempts to cast it in the form of a "threat" can avoid that.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It does not matter whether my page is "littered" ( as you claim ) with warnings and advices , this ranting of yours has nothing to do with it. I didn't even see the message from the user above me , so don't be so fast to accuse me and next time you come in my user page with this kind of attitude please ask before making yourself look not so smart--EuroHistoryTeacher —Preceding unsigned comment added by EuroHistoryTeacher (talk • contribs) 01:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

(copied from your talk page):

I suggest you read the discussion first then, otherwise you may find yourself in a similar situation in future. Unacceptable messages are always unacceptable, and your message was unacceptable in isolation without any need to read the preceding messages; though you compounded your error by not reading them. I suggest you take more care in future and listen to the advice you have been given by other editors on other occasions on this very talk page.

I suggest you stop using the word "ranting" as well.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I read the discussion and what do you know ? message above me was yours. I suggest you stop using the word suggest, it bores. Have some tea you sound mad--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

See here  DDStretch  (talk) 02:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I don;t know if you are watching this user, but I see you placed a warning on the page. We had another sectarian comment and reverse this morning so I went to a level 4 warning: seemed appropriate given three previous changes without discussion other than a rant on the talk page. --Snowded TALK 11:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed the editor's contributions, and, given the sheer number of attacking and disrupting comment on talk pages, coupled with extremely inflammatory edit summaries, I have anon-blocked them for a week. I doubt it will work, but I hope this prevents any more disruption for a while. I am not confident that this action will "£stick" however, given the recent inconsistent and overly lax attitudes to this kind of thing shown on WP:AN recently.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - and if anyone complains (and I don;t spot it) let me know. You too frequently do the right thing then have to face up to unreasonable criticism on these and related pages. --Snowded TALK 12:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello there! I just wondered if you knew how the 2009 structural changes will affect city status for Chester? Has it been published anywhere as to what will happen? --Jza84 |  Talk  15:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anywhere where it is discussed. I was resigned to just sitting and waiting to see what the new authority said about the matter when it took over. Though it may be somewhere. Perhaps Lozleader knows: he/she is quite up to date and accurate about such matters.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

This link may help, though it states only that the new authority is trying to get the city status transferred to it, not that it has succeeded in having it transferred to it. I've also emailed the contact person given on that webpage to enquire about it.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

No he/she doesn't know but was just looking for the same information, and found the same press release! It looks like they are trying to establish charter trustees. However, I don't think they can extend to the whole of the current district boundaries, just the unparished area which is more or less the pre-1974 city. According to the explanatory memorandum to the Cheshire Structural Order they have until April 1 to get their Act together. [1] I believe they have to make a supplementary order, which goes before parliament: I've searched the online Hansard and it doesn't seem to have gone there before they went on recess on Friday. So I presume it's still in preparation? Lozleader (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

This is the report of the Governance Committee [2] and these are the minutes [3] of the executive where the decision was made (item 32). Possibly a little more meat than the press release.Lozleader (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. If they had their wits about them, they might do something about making the unparished area parished in some way, and then having the parish council appointed as the bearer of the city status. If the area is a bit too large, they could always have formally a number of civil parishes that have a joint council administering them under the grouping arrangements present in many other parts of the current Chester (district) (see that article for details).  DDStretch  (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, Cheshire East and Cheshire West and Chester were both granted borough status a couple of weeks ago: [4] Lozleader (talk) 19:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll try add that to their articles. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

History of the formation of the United Kingdom has been page moved to Constitutional development of Great Britain and Ireland, but I object and said so on its talk page. Haven't a clue what your thoughts are, but I trust your judgement. Any suggestions? --Jza84 |  Talk  15:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose The use of "civil parishes" is in use in the United Kingdom to distinguish the civil parishes from ecclesiastical parishes, but I am not convinced that this confusion or convention is in use outside the UK.
  • Did you even look ar the sample articles? What makes you think they are ecclesiastical parishes? or even mitch be ecclesiastical parishes? --Carlaude ^(talk) 16:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course I read them. The issue is whether the term "civil parish" has any formal use in Europe. It does in the United Kingdom, but the United Kingdom is not Europe, and vice versa. If it does not, then the term as applied to the whole of Europe is just a wikipedian neolism which may not be useful at all.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Catagories are only used by wikipedians! How would avoiding errors not be useful? What makes you think any may be ecclesiastical parishes?

I am not inticating with the name change that these parishes all have an active government structure. In some cases it is a only carry-over that is relfected only in local deeds and such. The purpose to identify these categories as not church parish categories-- and thus not a place for people to categorize their own favorite local church, even if that church has the word "parish" in the name, like these:

• St. Anne's Church and Parish Complex
• St. Mary - St. Catherine of Siena Parish (Charlestown, Massachusetts)
• University Parish of St. Joseph in Greenwich Village--Carlaude ^(talk) 16:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

As I stated, the use of the term civil parish has a basis in the UK. I am not convinced that it has any formal or informal basis in any other country, and so, if my suspicion is correct and it does not, we should think more carefully about using it. It is not an issue about whether I think any of them are ecclesiastical parishes or whether I can supply any evidence that they are. It is solely an issue of the status of the term civil parish in countries other than the UK. Furthermore, as the nominator, the burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate and convince why the changes should be made, not upon me or anyone else to demonstrate why they should not be made. So, you need to show that the term civil parish has been used and is understood on either a formal or informal basis in the countries for which you are proposing these changes.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This is silly. Lots of categories, maybe most categories, use adjectives that are correct but not official. (e.g Canada is in Category:Liberal democracies, Category:Canada is in Category:Countries bordering the Atlantic Ocean-- Canada never passed a statement officially delaring it to be a "country bordering the Atlantic Ocean" it just is such a country)

I gave you an example of the confusion, and how it leads to miscategortion of articles. What sort of evidence did you have in mind. Lets say that the burden of proof is upon me-- what part of showning they are not ecclesiastical parishes have I not done in your mind.--Carlaude ^(talk) 17:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Once again, you miss the point. The issue is not that you have not shown that the parishes are not ecclesiastical parishes, but that the issue is that you have not justified using the specific technical term or language "civil parish" to describe them as if they are in use in the countries to which you are proposing the changes.

Let me give you another solution, though it is not my obligation to do so: why not use a standard wikipedia disambiguation scheme to separate them out, so we would have "Category:Parishes of X (ecclesiastical)" and "Category:Parishes of X (non-ecclesiastical)" Especially if the other countries do not use or speak English, I suspect that a direct translation of the local terms used would be "parish", and to make this "civil parish" may be WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS. The other matter is whether the terms are currently in use or not, in which case names like "Category:Parishes of X (defunct)" or similar (like "historical"), which indicates their defunct status might be much more appropriate.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I should be grateful if you would have a look at this list which I have just re-formatted, and suggest any improvements, etc. I'm thinking of submitting it for peer review and then as a FLC (if people think that it is appropriate). I should welcome your comments on its talk page (I am asking some more Wikifriends to contribute and would like all the comments to be together). It would be good to have something featured which is "pure" Cheshire! Happy New Year. Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the best wishes, Peter, and I am happy to wish you and yours also a Happy New Year. I'll take a detailed look at the article in a while, but a preliminary look doesn't make me think of anything seriously wrong with it, and much to commend it. I'll read it in more detail and give you my opinion in a while. I'm hoping to do a list on the former districts of Cheshire, and it can be seen at the top of this page: User talk:Ddstretch/Sandbox 3#Former local authority boroughs and districts of Cheshire (it has taken me some time to sort it out, and requires more work before it goes public.)  DDStretch  (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The sentence you've just tagged at Goostrey - could we leave it out, apart from the information on area? Thanks. The Roman Candle (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

We could, but it would be better if we could find a source and add it as a reference, don't you think? If you added it, then unless you did it from memory (an easy thing to do, as I've done it on occasion) surely it would be easy to merely add the source you used as you edited it in. If that can't be done for whatever reason, then why not transfer it to the talk page and ask anyone else if they can source it? That way, we can always return to it and perhaps even add it with a reference?  DDStretch  (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't add it, I just moved it up from the first section to the lead paragraph. I was wondering whether it's the type of information one would normally see in an encyclopaedia. If you think it is then maybe we just leave it to see if attracts a reference.The Roman Candle (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The area bit should be easy to sort out. The more difficult bit is the one about the number of houses and, more so, how many are listed buildings. Potentially, this can be found out by trawling through various documents about listed buildings in the local government area, but imagine the job would be time-consuming and tricky. Let's just leave the tag in and see what happens: if nothing gets added to verify the stuff in a few months, it is at greater risk of removal than it is now anyway.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. The Roman Candle (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)