User talk:Jhamez84

Contents 1 Saddleworth 2 Maps and 020 3 Silly Message from Jhamez 4 Your edits to Wigan 5 Award 6 Manchester map boundaries & Horwich 7 Horwich map 8 Wigan and Pemberton 9 Runcorn (and Widnes) 10 South Yorkshire map 11 Cheshire map 12 Cheshire Map created 13 Your recent edits to Sheffield 14 Sheffield districts 15 Lists of places 16 Northern Ireland map 17 Moved pages

[edit] Saddleworth

Thanks for your note. Great going on changing the map, it helps a lot; the old map would certainly be very confusing to an unfamiliar reader that might not be certain that saddleworth is a sizeable region.

As for other material, I have that The Saddleworth Story, and one other book called Victorian Saddleworth, unfortunately that's all as yet. I plan on going and buying some more in the near future, I really want to see the articles on Saddleworth improve as well. Featured article status might be a bit optimistic :P But I see no reason why it couldn't be Good Article status at some point in time. M A Mason 20:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maps and 020

I see you've been doing great work with maps recently. Some of us less artistically able might have good reason to be jealous. I wonder if you could help with a map I think would really help the 020 (UK dial code) article? A map showing the 020 dial code area against the Greater London boundary would really improve this article. Here is a PDF that has the 020 boundary: [1]. As a guide, the 020 boundary in the east (and north of the river) is near enough identical to that between Barking & Dagenham and Havering. Many thanks. MRSC • Talk 07:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That is fantastic, exactly what I was looking for. The only thing that needs to be amended is the red area should touch the southern boundary of Greater London at Whyteleafe and it should be perfect. As for the flags, yes I'm not too bothered either. I daren't vote for fear of being accused of setting the whole thing up to achieve my hitherto clandestine aims. :) MRSC • Talk 13:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Perfect. It is a fine addition to the article. Another one that would be good (although no hurry) is London postal district against Greater London. As a guide in this case NW7 just touches the boundary and E4 goes over it to cover Sewardstone. E6 shares Newham's eastern boundary with Barking & Dagenham for most of its length except for the bit of E6 that sticks out eastward. MRSC • Talk 13:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow. It is scarily accurate down to the small parts of Bexley and Kingston that are included, great! I will look at the auto maps this afternoon. MRSC • Talk 05:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Silly Message from Jhamez

• Thank you for the reply, something you don't always do. I must say, have simply gone over the top with your capitals there. When I use capitals, I am merely stressing the 'importance' of one particular word, clarifying it's significance if you will, rather like using an 'outline marker'. All this childish 'text talk' about shouting doesn't figure in my book, sorry!

Now then, where were we? Ah.. I only pointed out that there is not a 'conflict of sources' in the Wigan population case. No source actually gives the population of Wigan, only the population of an area containing Wigan, along with other townships. Each area has been identified by an 'authority', for a particular purpose and, clearly, for the use of that 'authority'. My source which, incidentally, may be online material but I obtained it from the Wigan MBC planning office, shows the nearest population count to Wigan itself and Wigan's population was estimated at 18,000 by a Wigan MBC planning officer. The 'published' figure , for Wigan, Ince and Aspull, as 'verifiabley sourced' is only 73,184, so how on earth can Wigan's population be 81000 plus? 80.193.161.89 18:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

• Another message, to me, from Jhamez. And it says '.......Can you see why I am so frustrated with your continued chatter on my talk page? This has nothing to do with me.' .....

If it 'has nothing to do with you', why do you continually revert whatever I put onto any of the Wigan articles ..... Even though I back up my contribution with 'verifiable sources' ? (ie. Wigan MBC 2001 Census Results). Then you add that Wigan, which was always a 'Mill Town', was also a 'Coal Mining Town', which it was not. By doing this, you automatically make it 'something to do with you'! 80.193.161.89 21:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

• • • DO NOT CONTACT ME AGAIN WITH ANY OF YOUR 'SUGGESTIONS'! (yes, I did shout it) Also, DO NOT SPITEFULLY REVERT ANY OF MY EDITS if it has, as you say, nothing to do with you. 80.193.161.89 21:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

• What do you mean 'again no source'? The source is there, link number 2, read it and do some sums before doing any more of your 'spiteful reversions'. 80.193.161.89 22:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH

[edit] Your edits to Wigan

Please stop your edit-warring on Wigan. By my count, you have just passed 3 reverts in 24 hours, which is the maximum allowed under WP:3RR. A similar warning shall be given to the anon. Michaelbusch 22:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Replied. Jhamez84 23:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Award

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		For the great work on map images for our major cities and conurbations. MRSC • Talk 05:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manchester map boundaries & Horwich

See Template talk:Location map Greater Manchester and User talk:Cwb61. Regards, Mr Stephen 14:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look at the West Midlands map. I've left Reddish alone to try and clear my mind of it. I'll take another look at it later, and then we can decide the way ahead. Regards, Mr Stephen 08:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Horwich map

You say the map Image:Horwich in Greater Manchester.png is awful! Well you made it, all I did was add the 'red dot' to show Horwich's true postion in Greater Manchester. I've noticed you've tailored the Image:Greater Manchester outline map with UK.png map for Saddleworth, Image:Saddleworth in Greater Manchester.png, yet if I tailor a map for Horwich, you nominate my map "for deletion as it is inaccurate and inconsitent with every other Greater Manchester settlement article". Double-standards I see it. It's fine for you but not for the rest. When were you elected for the Greater Manchester area, or for that matter for the whole country? I have as much right to edit as you are. Cwb61 (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I should have made it more clearer in the last post that I altered the Image:Greater Manchester outline map with UK.png with the addition of the 'large red circle' to show Horwich's position in the county from the map you created Image:Greater Manchester outline map with UK.png. You say the 'large red circle' doesn't cover an area of that size, you're right, Horwich covers a much larger area. Horwich's town and civil parish boundaries are the same, so if you take a look at Neighbourhood Statistics - Horwich Parish Headcounts you'll see the little map which shows Horwich's coverage and boundaries. Perhaps you could create one showing Horwich's town/parish coverage in the same way you did for Saddleworth. Then again perhaps not, others will want one too for their pages. In-text citations. A good part of the text I have created/edited and so I will find and cite those parts. Cwb61 (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wigan and Pemberton

According to the sources I've consulted, Pemberton parish became part of the County Borough of Wigan in 1904 (rather than be abolished and absorbed). However, in 1920, the parish was abolished and its former area was absorbed into the Wigan parish. So from 1920 the Wigan parish and county borough occupied the same area (including Pemberton). I would say this is clear enough evidence that Pemberton has been 'part of' Wigan since 1920. MRSC • Talk 06:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jhamez, sorry that this point is about the above again! I think that enough evidence is around now (although I will be on the lookout for more) to confirm my theory about Pemberton. Until JemmyH is able to come up with conclusive evidence to the contrary I think the articles should be amended to reflect this change of status. Do you have objections/thoughts on this? As far as the point about Wigan being 3 1/2 sqaure miles in size. The source JemmyH used was from 1911, this does not reflect the present day size, which should also include the 4 1/2 square miles of Pemberton. Additionally the Orrell article needs to reflect that the area adjoins Wigan itself. Thanks. Man2 15:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

[edit] Runcorn (and Widnes)

Thanks for your comments on Runcorn and improvements to that article and to Widnes. I agree with your comments and will work on the civic history section but I'm not sure where to get the info on geology - any suggestions? Also I think the sentence on climate needs to be expanded. Widnes I fear requires a more or less complete re-write - when I get the time and the sources I will work on that. Also I think we need to have a demographics section in Halton (borough) to which both Runcorn and Widnes can refer (separate statistics do not seem to be held); I have a go at that too. Best wishes. Peter I. Vardy 09:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] South Yorkshire map

yes please! L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 11:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick pause mate - [2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lewisskinner (talk • contribs) 13:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for making this map. Unless you (or someone else) gets there first, I will have a go at working out how to implement it this evening (I am 6 hours behind UK time) or at some point over the weekend. —JeremyA (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cheshire map

Thanks for the suggested map fopr the infobox. That would help a lot, I think. May be what is needed is an exmaple of how it would work on an infobox for a given place within Cheshire, so that it can be "sold" to the project? What do you think?  DDStretch  (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cheshire Map created

I have created the Cheshire map at Template:Location map Cheshire. Some tests are at User:Pit-yacker/Sandbox1, and the callibration seems relatively accurate, although may need some more very fine tuning. Pit-yacker 16:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added a coup-le of extra example places to fine-tune it. Malpas is a place in the south-west of the county, and so a good extra place to choose. The other one is a key one for fine-tuning: Mow Cop. It must straddle the county boundary between Cheshire and Staffordshire, and so it can be seen that the map needs "stretching" a bit to the east. (I also re-checked and made the wikipedia entry for Mow Cop to have maximum precision for its latitude and longitude, with the marker placed exactly on the county boundary on the high street of the village where the county boundary then veers off the high street.) Thanks for the help. I think this will look really good.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Have tried again per the cleverer method. Seems more precise but not sure whether there is any further fine tuning that can be done? Pit-yacker 21:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Malpas is now just outside the county boundaries when it should be a bit inside, and Mow Cop is in Staffordshire when I deliberately got the lat/long data to place it exactly on the county border (on the High Street), so I think some further tweaking is required. it seems to me that the southern parts of the map are displaced downwards. I'm not sure how to do the tweaks, however.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits to Sheffield

I have a couple of comments regarding the Sheffield article. I noticed that you changed the aesthetics of the infobox. This infobox dates from the time when there was a City of Sheffield article, and so it follows the same form as the one on City of Leeds etc... Is it your intention that all of these articles should have their infobox changed also? Secondly you changed 'north of England' to 'South Yorkshire'—previously we had an almost edit war with the traditional counties folk about using South Yorkshire. North of England was a compromise that seemed to satisfy all parties (apart from a stubborn few who insist that Sheffield is in the Midlands). —JeremyA (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

So should articles like Metropolitan Borough of Rotherham get revamped too? Regarding calibrating the map—I did it by creating an overlay in Google Earth; the whole thing took less than 5 minutes. If this is more efficient than the method that others have been using I can write a short description of how to do it. —JeremyA (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sheffield districts

Seeking some sort of compromise regarding Sheffield districts I have been playing around in my sandbox with various maps and the UK place infobox. I wasn't really aware that there was a Sheffield place infobox until people started arguing about it, and in fact I was happy for these articles to not have infoboxes. However, Sheffield place was created, and it has now been deleted, and the reason given for deleting it was that it has been superseded by the UK place infobox. With that in mind I have been trying to see how the UK place infobox would be used in an article like Millhouses. The main problem that I have found, and I suspect the reason why the deletion of the Sheffield place infobox was resisted is that the UK place infobox has way too much information for an article like Millhouses. Within this article it would certainly be desirable to show where Millhouses is in Sheffield and to provide the coordinates of the centre of the district, but much of the rest of the information provided by the infobox is just too much (in my opinion) for an article of this nature—Millhouses is not a former village that has been annexed, it is just a suburb so it has no official identity beyond being a part of Sheffield (for example, I don't think it would be possible to quote the population of Millhouses). Therefore, what I would like to show is only information that differs between this district of Sheffield and others: that would be the ward that it is part of and the westminster constituency (and possibly also postcode information—although I think that that verges on infomationcruft).

It looks to me like 'UK place' was intended to be a fairly flexible infobox. So I have been able to construct a minimalism version of it at the bottom of my sandbox. There are a couple of things that I don't like about this: 1-I would like 'City of Sheffield' to be in the title, above 'Millhouses' and in a larger font size. 2-I would like to include the ward. 3-I would like the 'list of places' at the bottom to link to Districts of Sheffield rather than List of United Kingdom locations. Are any of the above possible? Thanks, —JeremyA (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have visited the issue of Sheffield districts many times. One of the first things that I did when I started at Wikipedia was try to work out the best way to write about the districts. The main problem is, and this seems like a strange thing to say, most of them don't really exist. Now, of course they do exist, but I have overheard, or sometimes even been involved in, conversations where people who have lived in Sheffield all of their lives argue over whether X street in in P or Q district, and even whether a given district actually exists or is a sub-part of another district. At the suggestion of another editor I started looking into the wards, and I found a useful section in the City council website. Here they provide maps detailing ward boundaries and state which districts are in which ward (you are correct that some districts are split between two wards). To me this enabled us to write much better articles, without the need for original research. I therefore grouped the various district stubs into 28 ward articles. However, over time it has been successfully argued that some districts do have more of their own identity and should be written about in individual articles. So that is why we have what we have today. However, I still sort of regard the ward articles as parent articles for the districts.

Regarding some of your specific points. Figures for population total and density would (as far as I am aware) be impossible to get for the districts—I am yet to find evidence that they have any official (or even non-official) boundaries, so how would such figures be calculated? I have looked through other articles (such as the Greater Manchester ones), and to be honest I think that a lot of the information that is included is surpass to requirements. If someone were to add a list of local shops to one of the district articles I would remove it on the grounds that Wikipedia is not a directory or an indiscriminate collection of information. To me, fire, ambulance and police information falls under a similar category—is that really encyclopedic information? I also see no need to baby the reader by duplicating information that is easily found in other articles—if someone wants to find out something about Sheffield let them look in the Sheffield article; that's what I and others, wrote the Sheffield article for.

So, that turned into a long ramble about nothing in particular. I guess that I question using the 'one size fits all' approach within the UK, in much the same way as you question WP:CITIES using it worldwide. If you've got this far, thanks for reading —JeremyA (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to drop in, but could I direct you both to Template talk:Infobox UK place#Suburbs where I have suggested a possible solution for the whole of the UK? Regan123 23:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lists of places

Yes I agree with what you are saying about lists. I'd like to see either:

District	Places
A district	A place, B place, C place, A place, B place, C place
B district	A place, B place, C place, A place, B place, C place

OR

Place	District
A place	F district
B place	A district
C place	D district
A place	F district
B place	A district
C place	D district

Probably the first option as it is an economic use of space. If we want to add more details later (like I have for List of places in London) we can move to option 2, but it is a huge amount of work adding more details. MRSC • Talk 05:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This is probably the basic standard we should be looking to get articles up to: List of places in Kent. MRSC • Talk 06:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

If we can get the GM and London ones up do a decent standard they can be used to 'showcase' how the others should look when fully complete. The Kent list is good to show the 'minimum standard'. MRSC • Talk 19:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Northern Ireland map

I thought I'd reply to you here because I just noticed your message and I wanted to tell you that I've been working all day on getting an image for the template! I'm wondering if a PNG is the right way to go - its not a format I'm familiar with. Anyway - the image I've chosen to try out first is a nice free satellite image of Ireland that I've trimmed down to Northern Ireland. As it stands, it is 3,358 by 2,747 px. I don't know if that's too big or not, so I'll probably resize it with Irfanview or Photoshop (any recommendation between the two for resizing?) and then upload it for testing purposes.

Check my contribs in a while if you're online, and you should see it. You can tell me what you think then. I might try a jpg first, just to get to grips with the calibration thing. I have a couple of other images too. We could exchange if you like. Have you got email available here? I haven't switched my email option on here. --Mal 00:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved pages

I know you haven’t got anything to do it, but someone has badly moved the article from ‘Barton Aerodrome’ to ‘City Airport Manchester’. It seems that they have cut and pasted the text article from ‘Barton Aerodrome’ to a new page ‘City Airport Manchester’ but didn’t move the history. At first I thought ‘Barton Aerodrome’s talk page’ hadn’t moved properly to City Airport Manchester page, I did that, but then when I corrected a minor punctuation in the article and checked its history I realised things didn’t work out. If I tried to fix it I’d end up making an even more of a mess. Could you please sort this problem out? Cwb61 (talk) 06:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It's ok, the problem has been fixed. Cwb61 (talk) 18:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)