User talk:Lozleader/Archive 2

Image source problem with Image:Annascaul village.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Annascaul village.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 13:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Highland arms.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Highland arms.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Flat earth?

Hello Lozleader,

I know you've been involved with counties in the past. Just thought I'd bring your attention to County Durham. Apparently, the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) are, quote, "wrong", and a user is allowed to ignore all rules.

He's split County Durham into four seperate articles (itself a breach of WP:PLACE), and is asserting that County Durham has, quote, "four definitions" (no source provided).

Anyway, I've nommed the forks for deletion - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ceremonial county of Durham. Hope you can pass comment some time. Thanks, -- Jza84 · (talk) 03:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

County Durham naming

Don't suppose you have anything on the unusual naming to add to the article? MRSC • Talk 23:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back: glad to see you're not a redlink any more.

As far as County Durham is concerned, i've sniffed around JSTOR. I can't find anything to substantiate the claim that it is called "County Durham" to differentiate it from the Bishopric.

A few facts emerge:

• What would become County Durham originated in the "Liberty of St Cuthbert's Land"
• It doesn't seem to have been called "County Durham" in medieval times, much more likely to have been the "Liberty of Durham", "The Liberty of Haliwerfolc" (Now there's a name that could be revived for the new unitary authority!), or "The lands of St. Cuthbert between Tyne and Tees".
• Durham was not shired, but could be considered a "private county". It would therefore have been somewhat similar to the Liberty of St Edmund within Suffolk (which also managed to survive to become West Suffolk). The crown considered it to be under the jurisdiction of the Sheriff of Northumberland, but he was often (usually?) unable to enforce his authority there.
• The recognition of the rights of Durham to be a separate jurisdiction from Northumberland waxed and waned depending on the Bishop of Durham's political influence/relationship with the king. At times of the vacancy of the see, there seems to have been more forceful attempts by the Sheriff of Northumberland to gain control.

W. L. Warren, The Myth of Norman Administrative Efficiency: The Prothero Lecture in Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th Ser., Vol. 34. (1984), pp. 113-132. [1]

• The shiring of England was completed in the later twelfth century with the emergence of the northernmost counties. 'Emergence' is the appropriate word. There is no sign that they were ever formally constituted. They were, it would appear, in effect 'shired' by the exchequer, in the sense that they come to be treated by the exchequer as shires, or to speak more precisely as districts over which sheriffs exercised some sort of jurisdiction (in practice a rather limited jurisdiction)…

• Lancashire is a special case. The exchequer was disposed to call it 'the county of Lancaster'; but its acquisition of the Anglo-Saxon suffix of 'shire' may reflect the fact that alone of the new counties it inherited the essentials of a shire organisation, albeit in the form of a hotchpotch of diverse elements…

• The other new northern counties were formed first as congeries of feudal honours; but as the Crown gained a foothold through escheated honors they were given a sheriff and treated as if they were shires. One never escheated for it lay in the undying hands of the Church. This was Durham, and it remained a 'private' shire, developing as a palatinate. Can it be a coincidence that the northernmost counties were distinctively named as 'lands'-Cumberland, Westmorland, Northumberland-rather, we may think, as embryonic states affiliated to the young United States of America wereknown as 'territories'? Durham too, before it became 'County Durham', was 'St Cuthbert's land'…

Jean Scammell, The Origin and Limitations of the Liberty of Durham in The English Historical Review, Vol. 81, No. 320. (Jul., 1966), pp. 449-473. [2]

• It had not been shired as had the South, and the modern counties of Northumberland and Durham were then a single earldom. The bishops of Durham were thus never confronted by the need to take over a working royal shire, nor even by a struggle with a fullyfledged Norman sheriff. For the sheriff's office did not experience in Northumberland that rapid evolution which elsewhere in England quickly made him the most formidable of the Norman local officials, and he had not even begun to escape from comital control when Earl Robert Mowbray forfeited in 1095. It is not surprising after this unpromising start that Northumberland still lacked the normal attributes of shire administration in the thirteenth century Royal shrieval claims in Durham continued to be expressed through the sheriff of Northumberland throughout the Middle ages, but he had little energy to spare: lacking strong interested pressure he preferred to avoid trouble. Most of the stream of royal writs which testifies to the royal clerks' indifference to 'palatinate' status were returned as being outside his bailiwick; but some were not, and at least one sheriff of Northumberland was fined for failing to execute a writ in Durham...

• If a liberty with return of writs was still a place where the king's writ ran, so equally was a liberty which issued its own writs. In short, the bishop's routine administrative relationship with the Crown was, by the fourteenth century, that of the bailiff of a smaller liberty, although Durham's considerable size and social standing led to his receiving the royal mandates direct - with the sheriffs instead of through one of them. The liberty thus appeared to be a mediatized county, and the bishop's sheriff (a freak survival of private administration) appeared to be a mediatized royal official. So Durham, thanks to Edwardian classification, continued as one of the few 'hereditary' sheriffdoms to outlive Edward I.

C. M. Fraser, Edward I of England and the Regalian Franchise of Durham in Speculum, Vol. 31, No. 2. (Apr., 1956), pp. 329-342.

• The proceedings of quo warranto were held by Hugh de Cressingham and his fellow royal justices in Northumberland during April 1293; but the bishop and his steward failed to appear before the justices at Newcastle on the appointed day to claim the privileges of the estates of the church of Durham...

• The failure of the bishop or his steward to appear before the royal justices at Newcastle had been deliberate. The bishop had protested to King Edward about Cressingham's action ... his object was to prove that the seizure of his franchise was illegal, since Durham lay outside the bounds of any English shire. When the case was heard in parliament that October the bishop claimed that the sheriff of Northumberland had no power to summon him to attend an eyre at Newcastle, because "from time immemorial it had been widely known that the sheriff of Northumberland was not sheriff of Durham nor entered within that liberty as sheriff. . . nor made there proclamations or attachments,"

So what does any of this have to do with the name? Theories:

1. Known as "County Durham" to distinguish if from the city of the same name. Seems very likely. It did not acquire the the "shire" suffix, but nothing remarkable there, neither did Northumberland, Westmorland or Cumberland.
2. Known as "County Durham" to show that it was a unit with quasi-county status ("a mediatized county") within the the shire of Northumberland
3. We don't know and never will. Since it is an informal designation, we will probably have to live with this!

Incidentally, you will find references to "County Hertford", "County Westmorland" in old documents...

Lozleader 17:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I think it will be ok to leave the section as it is, unless you want to add something from these sources. MRSC • Talk 13:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

History of local government in Yorkshire

I've been working on History of local government in Yorkshire and think its getting somewhere near coherent. I'd apreciate a second pair of eyes and in particular it needs the addition of boundary changes from 1889 to 1974, of which I do not have a definitive list to hand. MRSC • Talk 13:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The first thing that I notice is the Ainsty: according to Youngs it was part of the W Riding until 1449 and from 1836. The latter year saw the ending of other odd jurisdictions in Durham and Ely. I will try and get confirmation for this. The Ainsty article will need correcting, too.

I can dig out 1889 - 1974 changes: it would take a bit of work but is do-able. A big one was the bit of Derbyshire taken into Sheffield CB.

I don't understand this sentence:

Lesser boroughs[specify] were Yorkshire isolates; Richmondshire and Allertonshire in the North Riding, Hallamshire in the West Riding and Hullshire in the East Riding.

and the Liberty of Ripon appears to be missing...

Lozleader (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

County Durham

Nice hunting for "an Act of 1836". ;-) Logoistic (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice Addition to Swad

Do you know enough to write on accents for Derbyshire? Victuallers (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

PTE

Many thanks as ever. I guess Tintwistle and Glossop etc. were removed from the PTE area in 1974, and also Macclesfield. As far as I can tell from the schedule the SELNEC PTE was bigger than GM, so no areas were added, only removed. MRSC • Talk 20:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought that too, but actually Wigan wasn't part of SELNEC, and the Wigan Corporation Transport Department soldiered on until 1974. I've just compared the schedule with the 1974 Act's definition of Greater Manchester, and these places were *not* in SELNEC but *are* in GM:

• Bolton: Blackrod
• Trafford: Dunham Massey, Warburton
• Wigan: Wigan, Abram, Aspull, Ashton in Makerfield (bits of), Billinge and Winstanley (again bits), a bit of Golborne, Hindley, Ince, Orrell, Standish-with-Langtree, Haigh, Shevington and Worthington.

Lozleader (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Will have to get around to amending the GMPTE article to reflect this at some point... MRSC • Talk 22:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed you'd left me a message about this (it had been swallowed up by some other messages). Thanks for the contact about this, I'll leave a note about it at WP:GM! Sorry for the delay! Thanks again -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Blythvalley arms.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Blythvalley arms.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

VoB

I think VoB has got confused. [3] 1,263,300 acres sounds a little high for Aberdeen City? MRSC • Talk 18:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Not the only mistake I've come across. One day some wikipedian will get a look at the real, printed, census for Scotland of 1951 and/or 1971, and all will be revealed! Lozleader (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Consolidation of articles

I'm looking at the articles listed in List of articles about local government in the United Kingdom. Some are very short or similar and I wonder if there are any you feel should be combined or amended in some way? (comments to: Talk:List of articles about local government in the United Kingdom). MRSC • Talk 11:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:IW Arms.png

Thanks for uploading Image:IW Arms.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Bermondsey (parish) and Battersea (parish)

Would you mind having a look at these two short articles? They were originally about the vestries, so I renamed them to the parish to give more scope for detail, but then I started to get confused when I edited the copy. MRSC • Talk 16:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at those. MRSC • Talk 00:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Question (for MRSC)

Hello Lozleader,

I've raised a query at User_talk:MRSC (under the heading "Question"), but having just posted it, thought you may also hold some answers. It relates to the relationship between metropolitan districts and borough status in the United Kingdom. It would be great if you could pop along and take a look. Thanks! -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Esus37 arms.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Esus37 arms.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

NI Arms

Did you make the edit to Northern Ireland Coat of Arms about the motto being added?Traditional unionist (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!Traditional unionist (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Greater Manchester

Greater Manchester is a current WP:GAC. From memory I belive you have an interest in the metropolitan counties and so thought you might want to take a look at the work being done. :) -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Southwark and Vauxhall Waterworks Company

Hi Lozleader,

I just wanted to stop by and let you know that I thought you did some really great work on this article, and so I've taken the liberty of nominating it for the "Did You Know?" feature on the front page. The hook I nominated can be found at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on March 6; please feel free to clean it up or change it if you'd like!

I'll swing by the article a little bit later and do some copyediting. Cheers! --jonny-mt 15:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Arms-herts.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Arms-herts.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

dyk

On 11 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Southwark and Vauxhall Waterworks Company, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Victuallers (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Cite british history

Hello. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Cite_british_history. MRSC • Talk 06:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

List of counties of the United Kingdom

This article may interest you. I'd appreciate checking of what I've have done for England and Wales. MRSC • Talk 12:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. I've incorporated what I feel comfortable with, please add or amend anything further. Might attempt Scotland if I find myself in the right frame of mind. MRSC • Talk 18:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I've amended the NI CBs. I'm now more convinced that it should not be aggregated into an all-UK list, given the complexity. MRSC • Talk 19:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

City Status: New Cities 2000,2002

Hi Lozleader. I agree with your edit. Thanks for correcting my mistakes re Inverness etc, I had failed to notice that I was editing just the England and Wales section! and I appreciate your reversion to prose style.
In fairness, do you think we should now add Inverness and Stirling to the Scotland Section? And Newry and Lisburn to the Northern Ireland Section? Regards--Observer29 (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lozleader. Thanks for your reply. I will presume that, if it was historic that certain towns in England and Wales were awarded city status in 2000 and 2002, then it would be equally historic, (if not more so!) that some towns in Scotland and Northern Ireland were also awarded city status in those years. Your edit of 3.4.08 at 16:31 quite rightly removed, from the England/Wales section, my references to awards to towns in Scotland and N.I. but your revision did not then transfer them to their respective geographic/country sections, hence my enquiry. --Observer29 (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lozleader. Thanks for inclusion of Inverness in the Scotland section. I had delayed adding it because of my uncertainty as to the 'official' granting of the status. You have neatly overcome the problem by your wise wording. Well done! --Observer29 (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

City status in the United Kingdom FAR

City status in the United Kingdom has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.--Peter Andersen (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

List of cities in the United Kingdom

I've made a new article to house the table, but one of the Leicester citations doesn't work. Help!GSTQ (talk) 04:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, have you a citation for when St. David's lost its city status in the nineteenth century?GSTQ (talk) 04:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Lieutenancy areas

Hello there Lozleader,

Just wondered if you had any material that might help expand the Lieutenancy area article. I've managed to get a map for the article, but it's lacking prose. No problem if you can't help with this one, :) --Jza84 |  Talk  18:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Anglian water.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Anglian water.png. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 04:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

London and its liberties

Hello. I've been trying to find a list of the areas meant by this phrase. I think they might be this, but this comes from my inference. I wonder if the definition changed much and if any of these were included. Any ideas? MRSC • Talk 21:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this. The next questions are 1) When did they become part of the City proper for all purposes and 2) What was their status before this happened and what powers did the Corporation have over them? MRSC • Talk 09:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Just thought...

...you might be interested in something that's been (or being) put together here. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  13:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That version of SELNEC's origins is a new one on me. I'm coming round to the idea that we may need to removed the redirect on SELNEC and create an article. I'm not sure though - might be worth using a History of local government in London as a template for Greater Manchester (which, as I've tried to outline, has much deep origins that LGA72). I don't know, just ideas floating around at the moment.

I think the former districts certainly have their place on Wikipedia. I've yet to see one reach its zenith yet though, but the Stockport one is good. I always envisaged these to have notes on council chairmen, sizes of councils, their remit, what municipal undertakings they did, their coat of arms, interactions with other districts and relationship and attitude towards 1974.

Still so much to do, but I'm also thinking about the possibiltiy of navigation templates - one each for each administrative county, split by county borough, municipal borough, urban district and rurual district. Might be lengthy, but I think this would raise awareness of their existence and improve navigation for our readers. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually you've prompted me to put something together. Do you think User:Jza84/Sandbox1 might be workable? I wouldn't expect, or really want it on the main county pages, but rather, the local government district articles, to tie them together. What do you think? I can delete it if you think its not appropriate. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I know - the county boroughs were/are a bit of an issue. I believe most, if not all of them (bar rare exceptions like The City) were within one county or another for lieutenancy. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to, say, link the County Borough of Bury with Lancs in this respect. Certainly I think you're right about changing "county borough" for something like "associated county borough". What do you think? Perhaps MRSC can make a suggestion? --Jza84 |  Talk  21:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Just on the back of that discussion regarding improving these district and county articles, thought you might want to know that there are plans to nominate Greater Manchester for WP:FA status shortly. I believe some of the referencing is "borrowed" from content you've written elsewhere, like on the metropolitan county article, and thought you might want to take a look and give us any pointers where necessary. :-) --Jza84 |  Talk  01:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Lozleader/Archive 2, and welcome to Wikiproject Greater Manchester! Thank you for your generous offer to help contribute. I'm sure your input will be much appreciated. I hope you enjoy contributing here and being a Greater Manchester Project Wikipedian! As a project we aim to have all our articles compliant with the various editing policies and guidelines. If you are contributing an article, it is good practice to ensure that it’s properly referenced with reliable sources, otherwise any contentious content may be removed by another editor. A good starting point for articles about settlements in Greater Manchester is the WP:UKCITIES guideline. If you have any questions, feel free to discuss anything on the project talk page, or to leave a message on my own talk page. Please remember to sign all your comments, and be bold with your ideas. Again, welcome, and happy editing!

List of counties of the United Kingdom

I thought the material I added is a good resource for all sorts of research and cross-referencing. It is the original form of the article as polished by various editors; the form which earned it the rating "This article has been rated as top-importance within the UK geography WikiProject." (I found the code again on an independent web site, though it needed slight tidying up.) Later of course MRSC did a "delete all and add".

On a map of the UK for any given date one sees areas given names but no detail about what each one is and what it does; the long tables answer all that and provide links to useful information.

If it is just that these resources would be best on an article with a different name then that could be done.

LG02 (talk) 12:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Those are useful thoughts. I was thinking along the lines of "Counties and cognate areas" but that is not any improvement!

I heartily disagree with splitting the lists into subnational divisions; there is no real justification. On a map one area looks much like another; the content of the lists will state which is a "principal area", which a "county" and which a "council area". Even among the ancient or geographical counties, a county or a shire was much the same from Cornwall to Caithness. All this splitting up of the country (are we not all British here?) puts England at the top and Scotland almost as an afterthough; York before Aberdeen as if that were a proper order of things. The areas of Wales get shoved at the end like a footnote, but I'll uphold Carmarthenshire as important as Cambridgeshire against all-comers.

We can work on the "abolished counties" section, and dates, and look at how county boroughs etc can be worked in, but they are of less importance than the current local government areas and indeed for some the ancient counties.

LG02 (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It must be remembered that for the devolution-minded, "are we not all British here?" is a distinct non-starter as an argument, even if you're not full-bore Plaid Cymru or whatever. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Royton UDC coat of arms

Hello there! Thanks for the contact. I have absolutely no idea what this arms could mean and when it dates from. Infact, I had always understood that (in this corner of the world), only Failsworth, Chadderton, Oldham and Rochdale were ever granted arms. The arms you see on the Royton article are a colourised scan of a crest found in a local history book I've borrowed.

Although I have no evidence (yet), I expect that the arms allude to some of the dignitaries who used to live in the area - the Radclyffes, and/or the Byrons. It definately predates 1910 ([4]) and it seems to predate the Local Government Act 1984 as it's used by the Royton Local Board of Health ([5]). All very cryptic, and I can't seem to find this anywhere else online. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just left this as ambiguous as I could in the Royton article. It'd be a shame if I can't crack this at some point down the line, but I know that if I approached the College of Arms, their initial search fee is (around) £100! I think your explanation is very likely though - Roytoners probably just borrowed the arms of the local barons - they never were a creative bunch! --Jza84 |  Talk  12:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello there! Just a quick question, not too unrelated to the above: do you know when the Crompton Local Board of Health was established? I have two dates, one saying in 1863/4 (owing to the Lancashire Cotton Famine), and another in 1873. Any idea here? Perhaps there's something in Young? Hope you can help, :) --Jza84 |  Talk  02:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant! The 1873 date must be a typo (sadly in a rather good local history book). It helps alot as I'm rewritting large parts of the Shaw and Crompton article and it puts the cotton famine (and thus the factory system) in to perspective for me, and hopefully our readers! I'll put something together in the article. Thanks again! --Jza84 |  Talk  11:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Smithfield Market

It should probably go here: Smithfield Market. However, there are a lot of inbound links, all for London. I'm not sure if they should be updated to Smithfield, London. MRSC • Talk 06:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Oldham COA

Brilliant! I had a real hard time working out what exactly was going on in the shield of that arms, and only had a couple of poor sources to work from. Your version is far superior and I thank you for taking the time to correct me and my work! I will probably seek to delete my version from commons. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Sale, Greater Manchester

Hi, thanks for your edits to the article. I'm wondering if you have the page numbers for the book you used (Youngs [1991]), it will help with the consistency of citations within the article. Nev1 (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Also a link you introduced into the article [6] is broken and I'm not sure where it's supposed to be pointing. Nev1 (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I'll take care of the referencing. Nev1 (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Clinton award of arsm

Thank you for providing a proper reference. Obviously I didn't have one! Ta. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 10:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Birth and death dates for MPs

Hi - the dates are from Leigh Rayment. While it doesn't give the appearance of being a terribly reliable source, it actually checks out very well. I suspect that Rayment may have taken the birth and death dates from Stenton and Lees' series Who's Who of British MPs, which tends to be the best resource for this, but I only have access to that at a library. Warofdreams talk 14:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester September Newsletter, Issue IX

Delivered on 2 September 2008 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

Just wondered...

Hello there! Your name flashed up on my watch list, prompting me to ask you a small favour/query!... I was wondering if you had anything on Prestwich-cum-Oldham or Salford (hundred) that could flesh the articles out a little more? They rarely get any edits from anyone bar myself and I've exhausted my source material. Could you help? :) --Jza84 |  Talk  13:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks ever so much! You added some interesting stuff! :) --Jza84 |  Talk  19:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Just one more request (off the back of the last) sorry: I'm struggling understanding where Hundersfield fits in with the ancient geography of the area. It's badly referenced, but I understood it to have been split/dissolved a considerable time prior to the LGA1894. Do you have anything to hand? No probs if not. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I thought Youngs would help here, but I'm more happy about the shared confusion if I'm honest. I'll see if I can update the article to reflect your research. Thanks again Lozleader! --Jza84 |  Talk  20:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Tom Cottingham Edwards-Moss

A tag has been placed on Tom Cottingham Edwards-Moss requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. UltraMagnus (talk) 16:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The version I deleted did not say that he'd been elected as an MP! All MPs are inherently notable, however obscure. (The two folks you named were both elected.) This is a product, I fear, of the dangerous habit of posting a partial article rather than waiting until it's more nearly in its finished form. I think of Wikipedia as I would a published book: I don't submit anything until it is complete in all essential details, including copyediting; and above all until I make it clear why this subject is notable enough to get its own article here. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

We've all sinned and fallen short in the eyes of Wikipedians; in my early days, I committed copyvios and other Wiki-sins myself. Cheers! --Orange Mike | Talk 17:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

West Midlands PTE

Hello, there seems to be a little dispute over what area the West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive covered before 1974. Somebody's edited it to claim that it covered a large area of central England, and was mostly rural. Which sounds profoundly wrong to me.

I was wondering if you had a list of what area the West Midlands Passenger Transport Area covered, Like you did with the SELNEC one. G-Man ^? 00:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester October Newsletter, Issue X

Delivered on 4 October 2008 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

WikiProject Greater Manchester November Newsletter, Issue XI

Delivered on 2 November 2008 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

Image: Crean statue.jpg

Can you confirm that you are the creator of this photograph, which you uploaded in October 2007? If so, could you add this information to the image tag? Thank you Brianboulton (talk) 10:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your very prompt response. The way you've added this info looks fine to me. FYI the article Tom Crean (explorer), with your image, is currently being reviewed at FAC with a view to its becoming a featured article. Brianboulton (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester December Newsletter, Issue XII

Delivered on 5 December 2008 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

I've replied

Hello, Lozleader. You have new messages at Robert Skyhawk's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Map source material?

Hello again Lozleader, I hope all is well.

I was wondering, do you know where I might find a map (or else some kinda of reference/source material) akin to this one that I could use to create new maps for other metropolitan counties? I'm most keen on creating one for West Yorkshire asap owing to a debate about the status and extent of Leeds vs City of Leeds. Perhaps you know of a West Riding map showing the pre-74 district boundaries? --Jza84 |  Talk  18:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I think I'll try and hunt down a copy of that ellusive book, as it seems to cover alot of the content I seemed to have homed in on. Do you think the maps would be "scannable", by modern ceremonial county, and able to be worked on from there? --Jza84 |  Talk  02:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I've spent a couple of hours looking for somewhere I can buy that book from, but I'm struggling. Any ideas where I might be able to get one? Or else alternative publications? I've tried the major book stores (including, of course, Amazon), but they're all sold out. Rochdale Library have a copy (or else say they do!), but it's for reference purposes only, meaning I'll struggle to extract what I need.

I'm thinking of e-mailing the department for Communities and Local Government, but as a last resort. Any pointers? Feel free to leave me an e-mail if you think you might have some leads that contain personal info, of course. Otherwise, I'll keep looking! Thanks again. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Sale, Greater Manchester

Hi, the Sale article is currently at FAC. Ealdgyth has commented "The Youngs reference, I think you have the wrong volume number, and there is no issue number. EHR's been published for well over a hundred years, so any article published in 1991 would NOT have been from volume OR issue 2 (They number their issues sequentially, btw). Please double check your bibliographical information. Do you mean this work? If so, it's got nothing to do with the English Historical Review, it's published by the Royal Historical Society". Is there any way you could help? I think it was you who added the book. Cheers, Nev1 (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much, that should clear things up. Nev1 (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester January Newsletter, Issue XIII

Delivered on 5 January 2009 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

Page moves

Thanks for your comment on my talk page. The general principle is set out in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places), and I agree, it's ugly and alien to English eyes. However, on re-reading the policy I actually think you're right. There IS provision for Metropolitan Borough of Lewisham, London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and County Borough of Stockport, and on reflection, I think they should be changed back. I haven't actually changed that many, because I was finding it pretty tedious, but if you want to help by removing the Move on any you've noticed I'd be more than happy. Incidentally, Crayford Urban District is still wrong (it should be Urban District of Crayford), as are Chester-le-Street (district) and Boston (borough), which should be District of Chester-le-Street and Borough of Boston respectively. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

If you let me know what's been changed and what needs to be restored, I'll make this so (you'll need an admin or two to delete the original page I think?). --Jza84 |  Talk  14:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: That book....

Fantastic! Don't know how you managed to get that! I tried everywhere, even TSO itself (who said it's out of print and can't help).

I suppose what I need is scans of maps from each post-1974 county with the pre-1974 districts within them. That's a massive task I know, and quite laborious, but I aim to get something in place like that one of Greater Manchester - it's really helped explain what happened in that fateful year, and what status each district had. I will probably only ever manage mapping the metropolitan counties mind, and as I've done GM already only 5 would need scanning really. Merseyside and West Yorkshire would be my priorities. How's that sound? If it's too much, please just say, I won't be offended! --Jza84 |  Talk  14:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! If you are OK with it you are more than welcome to e-mail me (I can e-mail you my details so you have a returing address), or else if you use anything like Flickr you could put them there? Of course we couldn't upload them here because of copyright law. :S --Jza84 |  Talk  14:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem! If you let me know when they're ready we can take it from there! Jpeg or PNG or any major image format are fine - whatever's best for you really. I'll be redrawing them as PNGs but I can use any format as the base. Thanks again Lozleader! --Jza84 |  Talk  14:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hope you don't me hijacking this section: it is good news that you got a copy, and from the contents, it sounds like a really good resource. Did you get it from the German (?) source I found (as it doesn't seem to have it any more 8-)?) What I'd like are (a) the map of the old divisions of Cheshire with the new ones marked in: I'll be re-doing them as SVG files, so jpg or png would be adequate for that. (b) a list of the civil parishes for Cheshire, where they were carried over to, and, in particular, any that were not re-established, as I have some outstanding matters about Chester (district) which a helpful council employee couldn't answer for me, though a complete list would also help, given the boundary changes that happened throughout. Sorry of this is a big job: emailing me scans would do, and if you want, I can email you so you have a target email address for me to send to directly if that would help. Many thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Got em! Thanks very much! I'll let you know how I get on with em! --Jza84 |  Talk  01:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

City of Leeds

Nice map - thanks! It was displaying, on my setup, with the single word "The" of the following paragraph squeezed in to the left of the table, at the top, then the text continuing below the table - looked as if there was text obscured by the table (though this wasn't the case). I've removed the "align right", which fixes the problem on my screen. Not sure what the universal solution is - I'm not expert on layouts in WP. I also added "formerly" which I think is a helpful clarification about the county borough. But it's a great map, very useful addition to the article. PamD (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Monifieth District

You're right! I had overlooked the rural area being transferred to the City of Dundee, having assumed it was only the Burgh of Monifieth. Sorry! Incidentally, do you have a copy of the "Local Government (District Council Electors) Order (Scotland), 1930", which I presume is where the schedule of Districts are listed? Skinsmoke (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, though I sometimes wonder if I'm doing more harm than good! I've left List of civil parishes in Greater Manchester alone, as someone's obviously spent a fair bit of time and effort on it. I'd like to get it in the same format as the other counties, perhaps copying a bit of the introduction over to the other counties, but also retaining the table but perhaps moving it under the map, but am reluctant to do so without discussion. Any suggestions?

By the way, I've just looked at the Edinburgh Gazette link. I'm in heaven| (Sad git, huh?) Skinsmoke (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Chester Rural District and related topics

I see you've been doing some good work at the above article. In a related large list-type article still in preparation, I've been collating all the past districts in Cheshire. See Former local authority boroughs and districts of Cheshire. It is incomplete, as I am now trying to complete the references at the same time as adding information, and I'm busy trying to identify the precise references for the bits I've already added. The problem is that some sources that seem to provide a definitive reference actually don't unless one indulges in synthesis and, hence, a bit of original research. I anticipated that it would be referred to in an article about the administrative history of Cheshire (which is one article for which I wanted the map I received from you earlier.)  DDStretch  (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

How are these?

OK?

Any errors?

Hello there! As promised I've put your kindly shared work to good use and produced the maps on the left and right. Before it goes live, are there any problems that you can see? The scans were awfully complex (that was the book's fault, not yours of course!). --Jza84 |  Talk  21:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've checked and re-checked these and I'm pretty confident I've got these right. As such I've added them to Merseyside and West Yorkshire with tables.

If you wouldn't mind, I'd love to get hold of scans for the remaining 3 metropolitan counties: South Yorkshire, Tyne and Wear, and West Midlands. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. They were easier than I thought too. My only surprise was that Liverpool was unchanged by the LGA72 - I know I've read it time and time again on Wikipedia that some suburbs in Merseyside were added to the city in 1974 - I'll have to fix those as I find them. I think these maps are incredible useful and valuable - we have few maps of the former districts. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I did think much the same of the Merseyside infobox map. I wouldn't want to put anything radically different in the infobox in the interests of national consistency, but I will try and clean the image up a little as you say. Shouldn't be difficult!

I think you're right about Liverpool's extent. Knowsley is oft regarded as Liverpool (or else its suburb) anyway. Perhaps if Widnes and Warrington had joined Merseyside such an amalgamation of Liverpool and Knowlsey may have happened? I wouldn't be suprised if that's the future of governance in the distant future.

If you would send me those remaining maps I'd be eternally grateful. Once I've done them I'm also thinking about doing something simillar for Greater London, although I imagine that would be quite a large and complex task. I don't think I have it in me to make maps for the non-metropolitan counties - I've done mapping projects before for WP and it's literally taken years! --Jza84 |  Talk  19:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll crack on with them! --Jza84 |  Talk  21:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(<-)Hello again! I've completed these maps - didn't take any time at all. I've listed them at my commons page to start with, but I'll probably roll them out as tables for their articles later. Verification would put my mind at rest though! :S Thanks again Lozleader, --Jza84 |  Talk  18:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for those pointers. They've been fixed! Hopefully the info held in the maps will go some way to raising a bit of knowledge about these former districts. It's amazing how some younger folk don't know that some "suburbs" (as they might think) were infact boroughs. I'll try to make tables and add them to their pages for the remaining metropolitan counties. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester February Newsletter, Issue XIV

Delivered on 1 February 2009 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

File:Arms of Aberdeenshire.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Arms of Aberdeenshire.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Taunton

Thanks for your help with Taunton & it's parishes etc. Do you think some of the detail about the population of different areas/definitions could go into the Demography section rather than the lede?— Rod ^talk 12:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks- I've moved it as you suggested - could you just check I've not lost your meaning.— Rod ^talk 14:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

South Bedfordshire, Bedfordshire and the 2009 local government structural changes task force

Hi there, i've just joined the Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/2009 local government structural changes task force, and have a particular focus on Bedfordshire. I actually created the Central Bedfordshire article, and would really like to get involved in helping with all the relevent changes to Bedfordshire articles coming up for ther 1st of April. I really admire your sandbox of South Bedfordshire (uploading images is beyond my technical capabilities). Therefore any help and guidance in helping with the project would be greatly appreciated! As a start I was thinking of adding the local attractions section of the existing South Bedfordshire article to Central Bedfordshire. However, I notice that Mid Bedfordshire (and indeed Bedford (borough) have no such section, and the main Bedfordshire article does have a local attractions section which covers the whole county. With this in mind is a local attractions section necessary? Or even standard practice for local govenment areas? Bleaney (talk) 12:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, and i'll do that now. This way, the South Bedfordshire will be ready for your new version on the 1st of April. Another question! When I created the Central Bedfordshire article I used a UK district infobox. However I have noticed that the Cheshire West and Chester and Cheshire East articles use England County infoboxes. Seeing as Central Bedfordshire is neither a County or a District (but a Unitary Authority), I wondered which infobox to use for the article. Any ideas? Bleaney (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Cheshire civil parishes near the ship canal

Thanks for the amusing story: the incidents were interesting. It seems to me that quite a few civil parishes in Cheshire (currently mostly in Chester District) were set up but don't seem to have any record of ever having had working parish councils or meetings. Once again, thanks. I'll work the information into an article or two in due course.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Durham

Hello there. Thought you would be interested in Talk:Durham#City_status. There's been a bit of an edit shuffle about whether it has city status or not. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester March Newsletter, Issue XV

Delivered on 1 March 2009 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

NBC maps

Someone has a query here which might be of interest to you as the creator of the images in question. MickMacNee (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:S Beds-arms.png

Thanks for uploading File:S Beds-arms.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Vivian Henderson

Thank you for so elegantly and promptly expanding the stub article which I had created on Vivian Henderson MP. It's a much more rounded article now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Norman Coates

Thanks for your note about Norman Coates. As I wrote on my talk page I was looking today into why nothing had been heard of him since 1942, and I have just written it up. Unfortunately due to being from primary sources there are problems including it onwiki but you may find enlightenment by reading first this article and then this one.

When looking at some of the press references I had formed a vague impression that Norman Coates may have been a bit of a rogue, which seems to have been more or less accurate. There's more to come in expanding his article, also. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Colin Coote

On April 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Colin Coote, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 09:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester June Newsletter, Issue XVI

Delivered on 3 June 2009 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

Nev1 (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

"British Chronicles"

Thanks for removing all traces of the reference so efficiently - much appreciated! Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Carlisle

Hello there,

I've made some structural changes to how we deal with cities on WP (I wasn't happy, nor I think were others too), for example, with Salford and Carlisle. I think the use of using the settlement as taking primacy for the article title was going to be confusing for our readers, so I've turned them into disambiguation pages. A good example is at Salford (which uses Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements) for disambiguation).

A couple of things therefore....

Would you be willing and able to produce a County Borough of Carlisle article akin the one for the County Borough of Salford you put together not so long ago. Also, would you happen to have any material useful for developing the City of Carlisle outwards too? And finally, if say, I was to propose a simillar convention for our remaining cities/settlements (Winchester, Westminster, Bradford - which needs splitting out again - and Canterbury amoungst others), would you support this? --Jza84 |  Talk  18:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

1. County Borough of Carlisle... yes that's doable. I think there were a couple of boundary changes and so on to put in. also, for some reason "This week I am editing mostly in Cumberland". Not sure why....
2. Not sure what you mean by developing "City of Carlisle outwards". Maybe its the hayfever medication slowing the brain...
3. Not sure what you mean by the "convention": would, say, Westminster become what Westminster (disambiguation) is now, and Westminster, London hold the content currently at Westminster?. It would certainly make sense with Canterbury, as the NZ one is the major one population-wise. There also a lot of Bradfords. Go for it.

Lozleader (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm confident this is the right way to take this, and stop the confusion about city status that has persisted for so long (note, the City of Sunderland seems to encompass Sunderland, which is a "city").

I used poor grammar in some of the above though. I just meant if you have any material for the City of Carlisle, then perhaps you could help with its expansion - that's a secondary concern of mine for now though.

Once the 3 Carlisle articles are upto a decent standard (hopefully in the next few days), I plan to propose that the remaining cities (which I've listed at the top of User:Jza84/Sandbox1) adopt the same structure (so Westminster become a dab page, and we split out City of Westminster and Westminster, London). May I give you a nudge when I propose this? --Jza84 |  Talk  20:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Nudge away. Lozleader (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Not quite nudging just yet.... but still on Carlisle.... I seem to be hot on the trail of verifying that Carlisle, Cumbria is defined by Carlisle City Council as the district's only unparished area. Although I've found pretty strong evidence that Carlisle and the wider city are indeed distinct (contrary to some pretty high profile debates about cities on WP - including the one on Talk:City of Carlisle), I'd like to verify this factoid for the main Carlisle article. You wouldn't happen to be able to help with this would you? --Jza84 |  Talk  20:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

There is this [7] that talks about the urban fringe and parishing or not of the urban area. Perhaps you found that already. They also have a map of the "urban area" [8] if that helps.Lozleader (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's the document I found. It almost verifies what I suspect to be true, but the wording is probably a little too ambiguous. Not sure where else I'd find this info. Shame. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

(<-) I should probably let you know that "the proposal" for city disambigation is raging on WT:ENGLAND. Your input would be appreciated. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Dumnonii

(Also on page discussion) A few points about the Dumnonii article.

• The article was badly sourced and badly edited to begin with. I haven't been working on this one recently but have new material and new sources in order to improve it.
• On Dark Age sources- the sources in the various Annals and Chronicles of the Dark Age period are used by all historians discussing pertinent subjects. It is accepted that these sources should be questioned but in view of the fact that they are often the ONLY written sources we have then we have to make do with what we've got.
• I have been working on sourcing, expanding in some cases, the personae in the Dark Age history part of the article- see this source too [9].
• I understand why some may have considered deleting sources but perhaps it would have been better to at least paste them here and look into it together. There are now whole chunks of texts without sources at all, not desirable. Please see Dumnonii on my talk page- comments and suggestions welcome! :)

Brythonek (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Mercator

Agree with your points- let's move it! I hope you saw that I did my best to reword it so it is not a copy and paste but it is official information if you like. As for CIEMEN, I have gathered some material which I was about to start on but the Copyright issue put me off, I might sandbox that idea in the next few days. Brythonek (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure that we can move the page while that darn speedy delete notice is on it... there may be some process that needs to be completed first.... But any rewording and extra sources in the meantime should save it from being deleted. Lozleader (talk) 21:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Humberside

Thanks for clearing up the POV opinions about Humberside postal addresses. I wasn't knowledgable enough to know what to do about the issue, and it looked like turning sour, so tried to "tone it down" a bit.--Harkey (talk) 09:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester July Newsletter, Issue XVII

Delivered on 4 July 2009 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

Nev1 (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Criccieth

Thanks for sorting out the abolition of the borough of Criccieth. I was struggling to find a proper sequence to events, which now make much more sense. It appears that at one stage the borough was smaller than the civil parish. Do you have any sources that explain if the improvement commissioners area was extended to cover the whole parish, or did that only come with the creation of the urban district? Skinsmoke (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes it took a bit of figuring out! What I can see from VoB [10] is that the civil parish of Criccieth was actually divided in two in 1894, with the bit outside the UD becoming Penllyn CP. This was standard under the Local Government Act 1894 which required UD/RD/county boundaries to coincide with parish boundaries and vice versa. There might be something in one of the directories at [11] although I haven't loacted it. Lozleader (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

A lot clearer now Vision of Britain has got its map pages working again! I will add a mention on the split (the reunification is already mentioned). thanks for that. Skinsmoke (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester August Newsletter, Issue XVIII

Delivered on 5 August 2009 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

Nev1 (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The LCC

I notice you're doing a lot on the LCC. There's probably a good deal I could help you with in terms of the list of Members which appears in alphabetical order in "Achievement" by W. Eric Jackson (1964). I can also email you the complete LCC election results by constituency if you would like them, sourced from The Times cross-checked with "Twentieth Century Local Election Results vol. 1" which includes every full council election and is accurate as to numbers if less so as to names. It is also cross-referenced in 1889 with some of the less well-known sources such as the LCC poll book compiled by the Clerk (a copy is in the London Metropolitan Archives, but only in one of the more obscure files and not indexed).

Another thing is that I have a full list of byelection results and vacancies which includes some of the early byelections which were never published in any source other than obscure local newspapers. And a list of all the county Alderman and their dates of service. If you're interested in this, send me your email address and I'll forward you copies. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That all sounds great, and verifiable. I think you can e-mail me by going to my user page and clicking on "e-mail this user". No hurry though it sounds like a medium to long term project. I will be off for a few days visiting London (I'm in exile). oddly enough i'll be visiting County Hall as the kids want to visit the aquarium. Small world :-) Lozleader (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I can indeed use the 'email this user' but I can't attach things to the email. While you're visiting County Hall, make sure to go through the 'ambulatory' - the vestibule around the council chamber where the list of distinguished office-holders are inscribed on marble. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. Have sent you an e-mail with the adddress. I am working from photographs of the inscriptions to collate List of chairmen of the London County Council, and then looking for verifications. There are a few "Mrs. Husband's Name"s in there which are causing me issues. A lot of these are red-linked but deserve articles they were MPsd or feature in the ODNB. This looks like a never-ending task! Lozleader (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Checked my mail and found those week-old files. They seem to import into Excel reasonably well. I shall have "fun" correcting my work :-) Lozleader (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Eham_arms.png

Pity, but W Gurney Benham died in 1944, making life + 70 2014. I'm no expert, but perhaps you could find another reason? - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 18:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You want Template:PD-US, which I've done. It's still in copyright here in the UK, so it can't be moved to commons. At least it safeguards it for Wikipedia. - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 18:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh right thanks: was away for a few days. Lozleader (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Metropolitan exclave

Thanks for reminding me because you put me on to a small error. The exclave to the west of Fulham is, and was when it existed in the 19th century, occupied by the reservoir to the north of Barnes, bounded on the east by Lonsdale Road. I doubt it had a great population because there seems only to have ever been one building there, the boat house, which doesn't seem to have been habitable. You can see it on some but not all historic maps of the period, but it is on the definitive ones - see the Boundary Commission of 1885 map of Surrey. The error I've made is to assume it was a detached part of Hammersmith - no, it was actually part of Wandsworth, and I'll redo the two maps involved.

You're right about the other two. There's some detail on the detached part of Clerkenwell in Muswell Hill in the article on Finsbury Central (UK Parliament constituency). Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Lord(s)*(-)*lieutenant(s)* [*delete according to preference!]

I saw your discussion on the page Talk:Lord_Lieutenant. I commented there that I was once told by Hubert Chesshyre, Clarenceux King of Arms, that the modern plural is lords lieutenants. Whether it is hyphenated or not I don't know. I should give some weight to the opinion of the second officer of the College of Arms.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

There's no end to this subject is there? I think that was a common form back in the 17th century.. it certainly isn't used in the modern legislation or notices of appointment. The hyphen is part of the title per the legislation of 1972/73 and later, but gets left out a lot! Interestingly in [12] edition of the gazette we have a couple of variations on the same page, hyphen-wise.

Not sure who can make an authoritative call on this, really. The officers of arms can give an opinion, but they have been proved wrong before [13]. If we can get the citations though I'm sure we can work it up into a section of its own. Lozleader (talk) 08:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

List of Buckinghamshire boundary changes

If it is of interest to you, could you take a look at List of Buckinghamshire boundary changes and amend as appropriate. Thanks. MRSC (talk) 12:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Will do, time permitting Lozleader (talk) 08:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, there were quite a few to add... hopefully that's it. Lozleader (talk) 22:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I was thinking it would be a simple list too! That will probably put me off doing any more for a while. Although I want to replace the Category:Places historically in Berkshire and Category:Places formerly in Oxfordshire with List of Berkshire boundary changes and List of Oxfordshire boundary changes. MRSC (talk) 06:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I wonder would it be useful to add the area of the county at each census? I think it might. Bucks, on the face of it, is relatively simple as there were no county boroughs involved. Berkshire and Oxfordshire are a little more complicated but still near the botttom of the scale. I would say the West Riding, Lancashire and Cheshire would be big lists! Lozleader (talk) 11:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

A very good idea. MRSC (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Must get back to this one too! Lozleader (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Coat of arms verification

Hello ther Lozleader, I hope all is well. At the FAC for Chadderton (found here), this website has been called into question for its verifiabiliy. It's possibly a justified questioning too to be fair! However, I need a source to verify the caption for the CoA at Chadderton#Governance. You wouldn't know of an alternative would you? --Jza84 |  Talk  19:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

County Borough of Leeds

I'm having some fun looking at the complex history of County Borough of Leeds. Do have a look if you are interested. Thanks. MRSC (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I have split out a County Borough of Teesside article from Teesside. It is presently unsourced. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You are busy. Will have a look later but real life intrudes presently... Lozleader (talk) 07:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

[14] Page 3 has a great map of the complexity of the various expansions/mergers. If I were feeling braver I would attempt to create a version of it. MRSC (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Great quote p459 about every single district to be amalgamated with Leeds protesting. MRSC (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes I came across that map a couple of days ago: it made the interpretation of the enlargements more easy for me, so something approaching it would be a good idea. The "Leeds 1", "Leeds 2" and "Leeds 3" definitions echo some of the stuff in the intermniable debates at Talk:Leeds.Lozleader (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a quicky on a related topic: You don't happen to know or remember what page number the West Yorkshire map was on in Her Majesty's Stationery Office (1974). Local Government in England and Wales: A Guide to the New System. London: HMSO. ISBN 0117508470. to create this map do you? --Jza84 |  Talk  13:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No page number: there are three folded maps (they are about 45 x 58 cm in size) in a pocket at the back of the book. They seem to be titled "Local Authorities", "Health Authorities" and "Water Authorities". not sure how to cite them... Lozleader (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I've nominated the article for a GA review. MRSC (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Middlesex Poor Law

I've prepared this map File:Middlesex poor law 1840.png with shape files claiming to be the Poor Law unions in 1840. However, the article states Willesden was not a separate parish for Poor Law in 1840. I'm thinking of remaking the map using parishes and then colour coding by union, maybe including the detail of Middlesex parishes in neighbouring counties for Poor Law (depends if it turns out to be ugly/overload). Before I do this, do you have the source for the Willesden change? Thanks. MRSC (talk) 13:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

According to Youngs (Vol.1, p.648) Willesden was removed from Hendon PLU in 1896. This is confirmed by the VCH [15]and the London Metropolitan Archives [16] Lozleader (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Caversham Park

I wonder if you can help me find a source for the date Caversham Park became part of Berkshire? The article says 1911 (with the rest of Caversham). Caversham Park Village says 1977. VoB shows 937 acres of Caversham remaining in Oxfordshire in 1911 [17] but I can't find any SIs or Orders altering Oxfordshire/Berkshire boundaries in 1977. Do you have any sources that say one way or the other? Thanks! MRSC (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This [18] is a document from the acting chief executive of Reading Borough Council that states:

Finally, following the re-organisation of local government in 1974, the Secretary of State adopted recommendations of the Local Government Boundary Commission to transfer into the Borough, from Oxfordshire, the built-up part of the Parish of Mapledurham, the Highdown and Crawshay Drive/The Ridings areas of Emmer Green, Caversham Park Village and the Micklands Estate, with effect from April 1977.

There must be an S.I. somewhere... I'll see if I can track it down!

Lozleader (talk) 13:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, I think the two articles can be reconciled: Caversham Park (the house) was included in the 1911 borough extension, Caversham Park Village was built later on land adjacent to the house but outside the borough until 1977.Lozleader (talk) 13:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing up about the house. [19] 1977 appears here as well, so it looks pretty definite, although it is Reading Council again as the source. I'd like to think they know their own history! MRSC (talk) 14:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Pathe: "London's latest borough"

[20] Might be interesting to you, if you hadn't already found it. MRSC (talk) 14:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No that's new to me... although my dicey connection won't load it today! I will have a look at it when things are working, thanks... 15:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Lozleader (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Pla arms.png

File:Pla arms.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Pla arms.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Pla arms.png]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Middlesex

This article is ranked #414 on the page view stats for WikiProject London. To put it in perspective, City of London is at #127, Greater London is at #175 and City of Westminster is at #355. It therefore ranks above all other London boroughs and all but five locality articles. It has not changed significantly since we promoted it to GA in March 2008. Perhaps we could work on getting it to FA? MRSC (talk) 12:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the article history it seems fairly stable now, the only problems being the ocassional link-spammer. I prseume the next step is to prepare a to-do list to make sure it meets the criteria and then throw it over to peer review? Lozleader (talk) 09:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. We need to decide if anything needs expanding. We don't mention much about Middlesex County Council and I was thinking maybe we could create an article for that, with the salient points summarised in the Middlesex article. I'll start a to do list on the talk page. MRSC (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I also have a (very large) map of the former postal county. I might try to turn it into a electronic image, but I am slightly daunted by the prospect of multiple scans and tracing in Photoshop. MRSC (talk) 13:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

A few queries :-)

Hi there Lozleader, long time no speak! just thought i'd drop you a line about a few queries I have. Firstly, i'm having trouble with the infobox in the Bedford (borough) article: We have just had an election for a new directly-elected mayor in the borough, and the new mayor is a Liberal Democrat. However, the infobox in the article still says we have an independent mayor. I have tried to update this, but can't see the field in the infobox, could you help? Also, I left a comment recently on the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/2009 local government structural changes task force, asking what was still left outstanding to do for the proejct and noone has replied, any ideas? Bleaney (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I had a similar problem trying to change an infobox for a district earlier this year, after some wheeler-dealing/defections had changed political control. Turns out this information is stored at Template:English district control which is then linked via the ONS code to the infobox template. Took a while to figure it out. Anyway I have made the change for Bedford. As far as the second point is concerned... dunno. If I notice anything out of date I change it. I now have AWB so can make changes quicker to multiple articles, so maybe I should make a sweep. Lozleader (talk) 11:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hiya. Thanks for updating Bedford, ONS link codes and the like sound incredibly complex to me! Anyway, as for Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/2009 local government structural changes task force, as I wrote on the talk page, if there isn't anything left to do on this wikiproject, should we close it down? Bleaney (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

New Sarum/Salisbury

Hi Lozleader. I notice you changed a reference to Salisbury Municipal Borough to New Sarum Municipal Borough on List of civil parishes in Wiltshire. I must admit that I had always thought that was the name, but A Vision of Britain gives the municipal borough as Salisbury and the civil parish as New Sarum. A Vision of Britain, whilst an invaluable resource, is not entirely reliable. Are you able to offer any further information? Skinsmoke (talk) 12:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems to have been its formal name at abolition e.g. in the English Non-metropolitan Districts (Definition) Order 1972[21], and New Sarum is also given as the name of the abolished borough in Local government in England and Wales: A Guide to the New System. London: HMSO. 1974. pp. 96, 117. ISBN 0117508470.. The Registrar General's statistical review of England and Wales for 1973 and 1974 is available in snippet view at Google Books and in both cases contains a list of "abbreviated and common names" used (1973 p.xxxiii, 1974 p.xxxiv) The table includes a column labelled "Area name used" and one labelled "Correct name"... Salisbury M.B. is given in the first column and New Sarum in the second. Others listed are Durham/Durham and Framwelgate and Dartmouth/Clifton-Dartmouth-Hardness and Dunheved otherwise Launceston/Launceston. It should also be noted that charter trustees were created for the "City of New Sarum" in 1974.

That said, on looking at the census reports at www.histpop.org, I see they do indeed give the name of the M.B. as "Salisbury, City of" and the civil parish as New Sarum, which is where VoB would have got their information.

So it would seem that the the "common name" for the borough was Salisbury, but the "correct name" (i.e name in the charter?) was New Sarum. Just had a look at the text of the Municipal Corporations Act 1835, and Local Government Act 1933, and the borough was named "New Sarum" there.

Not sure when I was rude???? I apologise it was unintentional and unconscious :-( Lozleader (talk) 15:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You weren't rude! It was just me correcting myself for jumping in without saying hello! Thanks for your response. On balance, I think New Sarum is probably the correct thing to use (don't want to get into another of those endless "common name" arguments). Thankfully, the new civil parish appears to be very clearly Salisbury, so no confusion in the future. Skinsmoke (talk) 13:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I should have read the edit history more carefully! Yes, I think the balance of evidence is in favour of "New Sarum" pre 1974, although I didn't until I looked into it! Lozleader (talk) 13:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Northumbeland coa.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Northumbeland coa.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 02:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I've declined the nomination as the image is used in the infobox of the Northumberland article, although for some reason Northumberland isn't showing up here. Nev1 (talk) 02:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I changed "Image" to "File" in the infobox, and it's showing up as in use now. I suppose we may be seeing a lot of these in the future. Not sure I have the energy to check every image link on Wikipedia :-) Lozleader (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

List of towns in the United Kingdom

Hello Lozleader,

Just wondered if you'd be able to have a look at the List of towns in the United Kingdom. It's the unsourced lead section which is causing me some concern. For example, it was my understanding that a Scottish burgh was analogous to a borough in the rest of the UK, and not analogous to a town.

There is a bit of unsourced speculation relating to local government legislation which I think you could be the man to clear up? I'd certainly be grateful. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  14:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi and Happy New Year.

Straight off I *know* the bit about a charter of incorporation is wrong: that would be for boroughs (and not even all of those). I think they're getting confused with market charters. And they were sometimes granted by the lord of the manor or by palatine lords (e.g. the Bishop of Durham). The LGA 1972 bit is easy to clear up...

The bit about burghs seems a bit confused. For one thing there is the question of tense (burghs of barony were definitively abolished in the 1890s, royal burghs were formally extinguished in 1975, although the title is still used in lots of them). Plus there were also burghs of regality and later police burghs and parliamentary burghs which adopted a "police system". In my opinion, which I'm not sure I can provide sufficient sources to substantiate, by the twentieth century a royal burgh was analagous to an English/Welsh/Irish borough: it had a royal charter and various privileges, and could not easily be abolished. The other burghs were created by statute and had less status (and no charter), being more like urban districts.

Anyway that's a bit of an aside, really... the thing is can one arrive at a verifiable definition for a "town" above the parish level? I was always told that it had to have a market, otherwise it was a village, but that could be an (appropriately) urban myth! I will dig around a bit and see if I can find anything...

Lozleader (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The Ordnance Survey has its own definition: A town is usually defined as a centre of business and population with an area in excess of 2.5 square kilometres (1 square mile). Some smaller places are also historically considered towns, for example, where they are market or former county towns. [22]Lozleader (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

And here is what the ONS describes as the traditional concept of a town:[23]

The traditional concept of a town or city would be a free-standing built-up area with a service core with a sufficient number and variety of shops and services, including perhaps a market, to make it recognisably urban in character. It would have administrative, commercial, educational, entertainment and other social and civic functions and, in many cases, evidence of being historically well established. A local network of roads and other means of transport would focus on the area, and it would be a place drawing people for services and employment from surrounding areas. It would often be a place known beyond its immediate vicinity.

Lozleader (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"Cleaning up" redirects

I've seen your name a lot in my watchlist, and lots of your edits using AWB today appear to be prompted by a desire to bypass a redirect, Cardiganshire. Can I draw your attention to WP:NOTBROKEN, an editing guideline which says that this is not good practice. I haven't looked into the merits or otherwise of the merger of the articles in question, but "orphaning" a redirect in this way would be a contentious issue in the case of a disputed merger, because it would make undoing the merger virtually impossible. So please don't do it again, and please use more informative edit summaries than "clean up" when carrying out something that isn't actually a "clean-up". Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 18:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Ouch! Sorry. That policy is new to me. I noticed that Cardiganshire had recently been merged into Ceredigion (not by me), and my watchlist is full of people "bypassing redirects" in similar circumstances. I have some vague idea that I had been informed in the past that it was "a good thing to do" as it reduced the load on the servers. Anyway, I am suitably chastened and am off to undo the lot... As far as the "clean up" summary is concerned it seemed the "least worst" of the ten options available from the drop down list.Lozleader (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, we all live and learn. You might also like to read Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance... Incidentally, there is an option on AWB to customise the edit summary, so you don't have to stick to the presets. Have fun. Bencherlite^Talk 22:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Allan Heywood Bright

Hello, do you have citations or references which can be easily verified online for details such as where this man was educated? Abacchus1974 (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you have access to the Times Digital Archive (a lot of libraries allow you to access it from home via your PC) you will find the details of his education in the report on his election in 1904: "Election Intelligence. Shropshire (Oswestry Division)". The Times. 28 July 1904. p. 9.. There isn't a whole lot about him online. While the Internet Archive has PDFs of a number of copies of Debrett's House of Commons which give these sort of biographical details he falls between issues (having been an MP for a short period to 1906).Lozleader (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that useful info. As Im interested in his education, are you sure he went to Malvern College, as opposed to any school in Malvern? Abacchus1974 (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah it says "educated at Malvern and Harrow", which I took as shorthand for the two most famous institutions. So who knows? As the family was based in Liverpool, I would assume it was at least a boarding school. If I find anything more solid I will let you know...Lozleader (talk) 11:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Who Was Who gives his education at Harrow, no mention of Malvern.Lozleader (talk) 12:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The Borough of Bedford and Central Bedfordshire

Hi Loz, hope you are well. As per usual i'm on the scrounge for some advice and guidance! I would like to create dedicated wiki articles for Bedford Borough Council and Central Bedfordshire Council. However I am unsure as to what stucture and content they should have. I am also wondering what info from the existing Bedford (borough) and Central Bedfordshire articles should be transferred. Any ideas? Bleaney (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

In Lozleader's absence, there are examples such as Metropolitan Borough of Stockport/Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council. I'm not sure if they show best practice however. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello. There are 51 articles in Category:Local authorities of England, so i suppose one should have a look at each of these and find good examples. The use of {{Infobox Legislature}} as at Poole Borough Council seems to make for a more easily read/attractive article. Lozleader (talk) 23:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Greater Manchester Combined Authority

Hi Lozleader,

Just wondered if you'd be willing and able to double check the Greater Manchester Combined Authority article, and perhaps also pass comment at Talk:Greater Manchester Combined Authority? There are a few details that I think would benefit from your expertiese. I'd be very greatful. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Will look at that in the next "while" :-) Lozleader (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Newnes spy.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Newnes spy.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Rcbutcher (talk) 06:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Bedford arms.png

Thank you for uploading File:Bedford arms.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Bus Reshaping

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Your prodigious effort on the Bus Reshaping Plan is admired and appreciated. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• SWOON* thanks! Lozleader (talk) 23:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Barnsley arms.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Barnsley arms.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Matthew Sharpe (general)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Matthew Sharpe (general), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.youseemore.com/Natchitoches/hottitles.asp?loc=1&l=nbcc&n=National+Book+Critics+Circle. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

That would be a false positive. Bot needs a lot of fine tuning!!! Lozleader (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I have replied to your note about this false positive at Coren's talk page, here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.