User talk:Jza84/archive15

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi there. Regarding this edit, isn't "per cent" the correct style per the MoS? It states: "Percent or per cent are commonly used to indicate percentages in the body of an article. The symbol % may be more common in scientific or technical articles, or in complex listings". Cordless Larry (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. My bad. Please feel free to revert. There are other usages of the % symbol in the article which will need changing too for MOS compliance. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, have done. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jza84,
Cheers for getting in contact with me.
I'm progressing slowly but surely with wikipedia. I am struggling in one area though - I can't work out how to upload pictures/images to wikipedia articles. Do you have any advice on the matter?
Best,
Darigan (sorry, forgot to: Darigan (talk) 12:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC))

Funnily enough, I looked at that article today and thought it was a bit of a mess. One of the most obvious things is, IMO it should have a more complete history section, rather than simply from the arbitary foundation date of the modern state (I feel the "republic of Ireland" article should too). This seems to be the general standard on articles like Turkey (FA), Germany (FA), Italy and practically any European sovereign state, much younger than the UK. Whats your opinion on it? - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, as I suppose it's comparable to the British people page. Yes 1707 is fundamental, but the article explains how they came to be, from year zero. That way the reader gets a full(er) picture. I think the UK article should have (at very least) a subsection of its pre 1707 origins. I have quite a few pan-UK books here, beside me, and they do the same.

From another perspective too, we do the same for England, Scotland, Wales and we do it for our counties and our towns. It gives context and depth and understanding, at least IMHO. A subsection of a few paragraphs may be all that's needed. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it probably needs finishing up with a mention of the Victorian era, obviously the two world wars and move away from mining/industrial economy. The identity stuff although probably best for English national idetity article, could probably be interlinked with devolution. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Finally finished it up. I think comparing it to other articles with GA status, like Scotland's, it should be passable now. - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jza84, do you remember adding a reference to the article for the following: "In 1974 the County Borough of Wigan was abolished and its former area transferred to form part of the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan". The source used is "Youngs, Guide to the Local Administrative Units of England, Volume 2", but something a little more accurate such as page numbers and then formatted into the bibliography would be preferable. If not, do you think Lozleader will be able to help? Cheers, Nev1 (talk) 11:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I was just looking at the Wigan GAC, and was hunting down a ref for Wigan being in West Derby hundred. Of the top of my head there is this, but I have some Greater Manchester books I can use. Otherwise, Lozleader will definately be able nail that one to death with his immense library of sources! --Jza84 |  Talk  11:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		For England... and in particular for working to plug a gap I had identified but did nothing to correct - post Union history of England, for the GA nom.hamiltonstone (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jza, I note your interest in population genetics at British people, so I'd be interested in your views on these edits[1][2][3] and this discussion. Thanks! Pondle (talk) 00:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I just came across this resource [4] which rather puts Vision of Britain in the shade. Full volumes, county reports the works, although all as images. Perhaps you knew about it already but I'm stoked! Lozleader (talk) 22:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Bloody hell! Didn't know about it! Looks awesome though! --Jza84 |  Talk  22:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone looking for "Sunderland Point" would never visit the Sunderland disambiguation page. Someone looking for the village of "Sunderland" in Lancashire might well do so. -- Dr Greg  talk  01:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you've possibly misunderstood the formatting of disambiguation pages. If the name of the article is "Sunderland Point" - which it is - then that should be listed on the page (if appropriate); articles on disambiguation pages should not be piped or redirected per WP:D, it is part of the Manual of Style. If Sunderland Point is known in shorthand as Sunderland, then that's fine, we can say that, and keep it on the page, but we should use the title of the article, not a redirect.

It would be like going to the Shaw article and piping Shaw and Crompton to Shaw, Greater Manchester. It defeats a great part of the purpose of disambiguation and navigation. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

So would it be OK to rewrite the entry as "Sunderland, a village in Lancashire also known as Sunderland Point"? -- Dr Greg  talk  17:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think so, looking at WP:D. Although the guide seems to prefer something like "Sunderland Point", also known as a Sunderland, a village in Lancashire". --Jza84 |  Talk  21:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop for one second, haha! I've finished the entire page, but I can't submit because of edit conflicts. Hayden120 (talk) 11:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Oooops! Sorry! That was quick! Thought it would take a few days! Thanks Hayden! --Jza84 |  Talk  11:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Haha, no worries! I thought a few editors could do about 100 footnotes each, but after I did the first 100, I thought, bugger it, I'll do the lot! Hayden120 (talk) 11:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Nikki has passed England as a GA now. I didn't expect the review to be so lengthy (and take months to fix everything) to be honest, but the article seems to be much better for it. Was it the UK one you said we should work on next? - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant! I'm really pleased it happened. I never thought there would be enough willpower to make it so for such a major article. I'm glad you persisted with the overhaul back in August, otherwise the resistance to change might have won!! You were the main driving force for making it happen.

I personally have English people and Scottish people as targets. But the UK is in definate need of an upgrade - I'd love to collaborate on that, and get Hayden120 (talk · contribs) on board (not sure where he/she has been lurking for so long - a very good editor). I think the UK is going to be more of a challenge though in terms of resistence and nationalist sentiments and finding material. I have been collecting possible images for these pages though here, borrowing from some of the materials you've added or found at commons.

What are your thoughts? --Jza84 |  Talk  19:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I did want to make Ireland's article (the modern country) into something on the quality level of England's article. But it might be hard to find people interested in making "normal" academic articles in that field. Sadly too many of the people who contribute to Ireland related article seem to be more interested in arguing or other drama queen activies, in a rarefied "republican world". So it might be a tall order to get something quality done. Maybe we should work on the United Kingdom article bit by bit over a period of time and yeah, it would be good to get Hayden120 in to contribute. To be honest I'm not daunted by neo-tribal chest beating in that area at all. - Yorkshirian (talk) 10:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It is an unfortunate state of affairs. I don't doubt that some, if not a lot of the definitive Irish POV missions are legitimate. The problem seems to be that simply must be correct, and the only true version of events/terminology etc. A further issue is the unco-operative nature of the users (of both sides) that are drawn to that area. An example of this is on Talk:Northern Ireland where users refuse the demonym to be "Northern Irish", on the basis that it is somehow a loyalist strategy to undermine Irish nationality. Of course, Nothern Irish isn't a nationality, it's just a demonym... the debate rages on.

I'd love to improve the UK article. It would take time though, you're right. For some reason I keep envisaging a greater use of tables in the article - like factfiles. Although the prose is poor, and keeps regaionalising the material, instead of telling us about the UK as a whole, I still see the use of comparative tables, with the populations of the 4 home nations etc. I also see in books about the UK things like "Geography tables", items that have things like "longest river", "highest mountain", "deepest valley", "largest connubation" etc. That might be useful to the reader, alongside some prose. Just ideas though.

One thing's for sure though - England knocks sports off Scotland (supposedly a GA?), Wales, Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland, United Kingdom etc. It's a really great article. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've only sorted an architecture section out for Ireland's article so far and one of them is already starting. Against WP:MOS and WP:SUMMARY style; currently the article is at C class so its a long way to go. Can't say I'm surprised to be honest but the general unconstructiveness on Ireland articles seems to be a waste of time and effort. - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

		The Content Creativity Barnstar
		to Jza84, for all these Good English articles..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for reverting vandalism on my talk page i should remember to sign myself off in the future.

Thanks Again

miniwillde 16:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willde1 (talk • contribs)

Hello, Thank you for the advice about IMDB: it is not a source I rely on but in this case it was prominent in the results for a search on Robert Powell. There will be something more reliable if a more careful search is made.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know LevenBoy has started a discussion about the dab page at talk:Carlisle‎ and possible renaming of the City of Carlisle‎ article. Keith D (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I put Buildings and architecture of Bath up for GA and a reviewer has started the review, making several comments (at Talk:Buildings and architecture of Bath/GA1) about the structure of the article and areas for development. If any of you had any time to take a look and make any edits or comments you feel are appropriate that would be great.— Rod ^talk 20:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If you ever feel like a break from arguing about "City of ..." articles you might like to join me at Paisley witch trials, which I've made a tentative start on expanding. They seem to be much better documented than I'd expected, and quite significant, not least for being the last mass execution of witches in western Europe. Quite touching as well; two of those garrotted and burned were brothers, just 11 and 14-years-old, who were strangled together, holding each others hands. This is an astonishingly detailed account. for instance. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hiya, a quick word.

1. AWB is at WP:AWB; request approval as a user.
2. The current 'official version' is shot due to wiki server changes; but AWB 4.902 currently works.

I find the whole thing relatively easy to use, but you may want to start out with limited changes yo get used to it. Someone complained about me describing the 'Westminster' fixes I did do, as 'repairing links to disambiguation' - the AWB default for the task - you may want to consider a more 'descriptive banner' for 'fixing links that treat this page as a disambiguation page'! So, also remember, someone will always complain - regardless of your good intentions! Kbthompson (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that admins are pre-approved, and don't need to request specific permission to use AWB. Bencherlite^Talk 11:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I am tempted to add some site plans to some of my mill articles. Imagine how the diagram on p163 of Williams and Farnie could enhance the Murray Mills article for instance. Question, have the colours that should be used been discussed in the past is there a MOS anywhere. As a starting point, certain colours could be taken from the Infobox File:Greater Manchester outline map with UK.png map, but is there a agreed list? Not urgent- just ruminating. --ClemRutter (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I seem to remember that you are a clever person with maps and dots thereupon. If I want to mark seven places on a map of Wales such as File:Wales outline map with UK.png, how would I do this? It's for potential use in Seven Wonders of Wales, incidentally. Bencherlite^Talk 11:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

(cough...) Any thoughts? Bencherlite^Talk 14:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I just happened to notice this question (page still on my watchlist). Use {{Location map+}}. There's an example halfway through the River Wyre article. -- Dr Greg  talk  19:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; alas, {{Location map Wales}} is messed up at present and so I've asked for help at Template talk:Location map to try and fix it. Bencherlite^Talk 21:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just had a look and it seems that {{Location map Wales2}} may work better, if that image is acceptable. -- Dr Greg  talk  21:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! Seven Wonders of Wales is looking much better now, I think. Many thanks for your help. Bencherlite^Talk 22:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Jza84, could you check that all is well with the List of countries by military expenditures for the United Kingdom please, it keeps getting edited and changed. Thanks --SuperDan89 (talk) 12:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the above user, SuperDan89, is a sockpuppet of the users User:Bro5990 and User:BlackHades, themselves probably sockpuppets of User:Aogouguo, User: Signsolid, User:Usergreatpower who have all been banned for sockpupettry. This guy is using several sockpuppets and has been vandalising the article "List of countries by military expenditures" for several years already, and is now contacting you so you help him continue his vandalism. Funny! 90.44.20.208 (talk) 13:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? I have never heard of those users, I normally keep an eye on the United Kingdom and Doctor Who articles however I saw the UK figures had changed once again on the Military Expenditure page then saw there was a discussion and so checked and changed to the correct figures indicated. How dare you call me a 'sockpuppet' or accuse me of Vandalism when your not even a member of Wikipedia or know anything about me. I know some like to keep a dominance over the Expenditure List however I believe it is totally unacceptable for you to accuse me of anything. I have been a member here since April 2009 and have only edited the list today. I have posted in the discussion page for the United Kingdom on a few occasions and saw that Jza84 normally has a fair balanced view, therefore have asked to see if all is in order, rather the opposite of vandalism. You should be careful of accusing people when you know nothing of them. -- SuperDan89 (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Jz188.220.93.184 (talk) 01:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)a84, thanks for your energy. As a newcomer to Wikipedia, may I ask for your help in deleting a false statement in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shugborough_inscription

referring to an alleged attempt at decipherment of the inscription at Bletchley Park in 2004. Cryptoanalysis there ceased in 1945 (ref: http://www.bletchleypark.org.uk/content/hist/recent.rhtm )

Thanks, Kibo

reply to me if you still logg on to wikapeadia, thanks mate.Bro5990 (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you know if the article above is the correct link to use when discussing the East Riding of 1737? I suppose the same could be asked of Lincolnshire. Its for Dick Turpin. Parrot of Doom 15:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

To jump in, there is only a single article for the East Riding of Yorkshire covering all periods. We moved most of the differences in geography over the years into History of the East Riding of Yorkshire, but put the map of boundary changes back, while getting the main article ready for a GA review. The history article needs a lot of work to clarify the boundary changes over the years and is probably just a jumble at the moment. Keith D (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Jza hasn't edited for a few weeks, I hope he'll be back soon. I changed the Turpin article by prefixing the counties with the 'historic counties of' link. Parrot of Doom 18:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

At the project page where your original proposal was debated about the moving of articles such as Sunderland, the final remark from User:MRSC is there should be no more. You have failed to obtain consensus for your proposals and yet after a three-week editing break you immediately carry out yet another controversial move at Wakefield (one of your original targets) without any form of debate whatsoever. I repeat - you don't have consensus for this. Please give me one good reason why I shouldn't revert your moves? LevenBoy (talk) 12:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Per WP:BRD, I have reverted them and this clearly needs to go back to discussion. I have no opinion myself on this, but there wasn't any consensus for the moves at WT:ENGLAND - indeed, there may even have been a majority against it. Black Kite
  • It wasn't a matter for debate as much as is stressed here. Policy dictates that ambiguous names should be disambiguated. There's no evidence whatsoever that Wakefield, West Yorkshire is the primary topic over (for example) City of Wakefield. To debate it is irksome and a waste of time; I repeat, there is no evidence that there is a primary topic here. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Jza84 is right. The articles don't do either place justice so I will try to improve one or both, I'll see what I can find. By the way it's good to see you back Jza84 --J3Mrs (talk) 10:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Amongst other evidence is the page view statistics, but you choose to rubbish those because they don't support your argument. Note yet again the actual place, Wakefield, gets far more hits than the local government area City of Wakefield. Wakefield is undoubtedly the primary topic. All other usages hang off it and relate to it - City of Wakefield, a local government area based on the city of Wakefield. LevenBoy (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That's the stupidest thing I've ever read in my life. Of course Wakefield gets more page hits - it's the common title of several different entities!!!!!!! Everyone looking for one of the several entities is forced to view Wakefield! That doesn't mean they wanted a page about settlement there. And you then say the City of Wakefield is based on the city of Wakefield. What a joke. No wonder WP has gone to pot. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Good work on Bacup - but have you checked the claim that Michael Davitt emigrated there? All sources suggest Haslingden instead. Although I notice that you provide a reference for this claim? Cheers Bob (talk) 08:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on User talk:Darigan, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Darigan (talk) 11:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Ages ago you created File:Somerset outline map with UK.png which is used on hundreds of Somerset articles & is great. However doing some updating on West Somerset articles I came across Brompton Regis which is in Somerset but the red dot appears to fall outside the boundaries. I have checked the coordinates used on the article on streetmap & they point to the right place so I was wondering if it is possible that the Somerset map is based on old boundaries or you know of any other reason why this discrepancy might occur?— Rod ^talk 10:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry cancel all of comment above - the error doesn't appear in IE or Firefox when I'm not logged in - so it must be something about my settings & not your map.— Rod ^talk 14:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jza84, I thought that a discussion about the English people article here might interest you. Happy editing, Nev1 (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Can I pick your brains, please? What's the best way to deal with some issues over at Benwick? I made some edits the other day to deal with unsuitable content (according to the guidelines set out by WikiProjectUK Geography), and left a message on the talk page, but all my changes have been removed and the previous content reinstated. Thanks! Bogbumper (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Jza84 is taking a well earned rest, so he may not be able to respond quickly. I've had a look at Benwick and I agree with your concerns, so I've restored your version and made a few additional changes myself. If you need admin assistance a good person to ask would be User:Nev1; he's pretty active with UK geography articles as well. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help - much appreciated! Bogbumper (talk) 07:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Jza84 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Jza84's day! You have made remarkable contributions to the project, and the editors and readers of those pages are and always will be grateful to you for them. We all look forward to seeing you return and continue in such development. Thank you again for your outstanding efforts at article development. Peace, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

Thank you!...... but..... it's Christmas Day! I don't think I deserve it. I've hardly been editting in the last couple of months. :S But it is thoughtful and encouraging. I hope to be back in early 2010. I have many an article I wish to conquest. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  21:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)