User talk:Mhockey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, Mhockey, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Red King (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep up the good work! --Red King (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Eastern Coach Works, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.Jeepday (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

a bit late, but for the record Jeepday caught me between "saves". Refs added 15 Feb 2008Mhockey (talk) 12:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Contents

Dunlop Sport (Australia)[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

A tag has been placed on Dunlop Sport (Australia), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of Dunlop Sport (Australia) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

responded on Talk:Dunlop Sport (Australia). Comment seems to have come from a misunderstanding over the purpose of the article (which facilitated the correction of several other errors in WP). Speedy was denied. Mhockey (talk) 12:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

LEJOG[edit]

Nice work on this! What a difference a day makes to an article - I only fell over it because someone (ah, I see it was you!) had added a link as a "See also" on Long-distance footpaths in the United Kingdom which is on my Watchlist. PamD (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Gertrude Leather[edit]

Splendid lady! How long did she take, do you know? I'm glad you didn't find the gent from Somerset too trivial, I thought it rather fun when I fell over it on BBC news website today. PamD (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

3 days LE to London, 7 days London to JOG. I rather envy the guy from Somerset (our new passes still haven't arrived) - but I guess he had to pay in Scotland! Mhockey (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

VAT[edit]

I've responded to your comments. Thanks! Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

LEJOG[edit]

The BBC article suggests he did it all for free, and there is such a scheme in Scotland, even if he would not normally qualify for it, hence I think I'm good. There does appear to have been some special permission granted here, presumably dispensation for him to use the Scottish scheme, but the BBC doesn't make the precise details clear. By the way, if your edit listing the price of a journey by public transport was achieved by tapping destinations and arbitrary dates into search forms on a travel site, you've breached WP:OR. Deiz talk 22:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Red & White[edit]

Your proposed solution to the problem is reasonable. I didn't correct the old links immediately myself in case someone had a better idea for what to name the original article, though I did include a crossref so that people wouldn't be lost. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

All done, thanks. Mhockey (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Malin to Mizen[edit]

The article was deleted due to an expired PROD tag. The reason the article was tagged was "No evidence this is a "notable" journey". Since you've contested the deletion, although a bit late, I've went ahead and restored the article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Edwards coaches[edit]

Hi. I see you're new to Wikipedia - welcome, and doubly so for dipping your toe in AfD waters. We need more contributors, so I'm delighted you're joining in.

The argument you've presented is one that is commonly offered by people new to AfD and it's delightfully nicknamed "WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS". What you're essentially arguing is that other articles should be deleted, not that this one should be kept. For this one to be kept, it needs to be verifiable, not just a company as good as other companies that have articles.

There's a neat little piece worth reading at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion debates. Check it out.

NB Edwards coaches may well be worth keeping - I'm just pointing out that this particular argument is a flawed one.

Cheers! --Dweller (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Not quite so new - almost 2,000 edits now, including contributions to other AfD debates! I agree that my comment (it's the "why pick on this one?" argument) was an argument for deleting other articles (or at least reviewing their notability), not for keeping this one, and I think there is validity in it. Consistency is a principle which underlies many WP policies (it's why we have a Manual of Style, for example), although it can only ever be something to strive for, not achieve - see WP:BIAS.
You may have noticed that I added some references to the article, to aid verifiability. But the real issue here is WP:N. Actually, rereading WP:N, it seems to me that there is a flaw in it, because the policy concentrates on what has been noted (usually on the internet) rather than what should be noted. A 500 year old company that no-one has written about would be notable but would not satisfy the policy! Mhockey (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
WP:N works pretty well, on the basis that anything worth writing about has been written about. Wikipedia is neutral and can only be a mirror for other authorities showing that something is notable. The particular aspect of WP:N we'd use here would be WP:CORP. We're really looking for multiple, non-trivial references to the company in reliable sources. If we can't find them, it's deemed not notable. Yes, it's a little bit broad-brushed, but in practice it works extremely well and has the huge advantage of being fairly objective in theory, although in reality, if you spend much time at XfD you'll find all kinds of massive debates over, e.g. whether something is RS or not, or whether a certain reference is trivial, lol. Anyway, I'm off outta here. Scan over a bunch of developed AfDs and you'll get the hang. NB I checked your contrib history - I think you have the makings of a future admin. When I'm back from holiday, if you're interested, I'll drop you some suggestions of what policies you'll need to demonstrate a good grip of. --Dweller (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Turcologists[edit]

Having seen your recent contributions to the Orientalist & Iranologist categories, including Ann Lambton (whose rather forbidding grammar I used many years ago), I wondered whether you were thinking of getting round to Turkish studies. If so, you will certainly want to include my former teacher Geoffrey Lewis Lewis, who died earlier this year.

Keep up the good work. All the best. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 21:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

PS I see that the correct article name is now Geoffrey Lewis! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 21:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I also used Ann Lambton's grammar, many years ago. Her death the other day prompted me to look at entries for some of my old teachers, hence my recent activity. You're right that Turkish studies needs attention too, I might have a go.Mhockey (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

If you do, don't forget to include the splendidly-named Andrew Mango. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 21:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Laudian Professor of Arabic[edit]

Thanks for adding some links to Laudian Professor of Arabic. I didn't previously know that that page existed, but have now added some more relevant links. However, the names

both just link to disambiguation pages, where the right people don't seem to be represented. Also, my information is that D. S. Margoliouth took the post in 1889, while you have 1899. What was your source? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The date was not mine - I just fixed some links - but I suspect the 1889 date in the D.S. Margoliouth article is right (it is sourced).Mhockey (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Historians of Hungary[edit]

Hello. I see that you undid my categorization of Category:Historians of Hungary, citing WP:SUBCAT as the reason, but I'm not sure what part of that guideline you think applies here. Why shouldn't this category be listed in Category:Historians by field of study? – SJL 15:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. This was my reasoning: Category:Historians of Europe is a subcategory of Category:Historians by field of study. WP:SUBCAT says that in "straightforward" cases an article (and I think by extension a category) should not be in both a category and subcategory. If you work through WP:SUBCAT#Test questions, you will probably conclude that Category:Historians of Hungary does not fall within the cases where duplicate categorisation is appropriate. In particular, all other categories of historians of individual countries in Europe are in Historians of Europe and not in the higher category (except Category:Historians of Russia and Category:Historians of Ukraine, which are not in Historians of Europe but probably should be). Mhockey (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I see why you did that now. Thanks for the explanation. – SJL 18:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

From WP:VPP[edit]

Moving comment here, since it's not relevant to the point at the 'Pump

Sorry, I did not intend the word "Unhelpfully" as a personal attack. I meant that it did not help readers to follow the debate to which I had directed them if part of it was deleted. I agree that the comment (not mine) deleted on your talk page did not concern redirection - it appears to be about a revert war on a similar article. Mhockey (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how removing a comment on a completely unrelated debate would somehow hinder people from following the debate. I removed that part from your comment as it may have led people to cast aspersions, which is also part of the reason I have moved the above comment here. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I posted it at the Pump because it did not sit well to be accused at the Pump of making a personal attack, which was in no way intended. I assume good faith on the part of other editors, as I assume you do.Mhockey (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want, you can remove the {{rpa}} entirely from your first comment. I don't believe it was done deliberately, but it looked like it others may have been influenced by it. I apologise if it came across differently. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Private equity firm subcategorization[edit]

Mhockey -

I noticed your recent sub-categorization of private equity firms. I personally do not think that sub-categorization by country is necessarily a path that should be pursued. While the list has grown, often these firms are global or transnational and making distinctions based on country does not aid a reader's experience. I would like to discuss before reverting and would like to get your input. While dual listing in the parent and sub categories is not typically condoned this might be appropriate if you want to pursue a UK category.

|► ϋrbanяenewaℓTALK ◄| 00:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying - private equity is an international business, although individual firms are probably not as international as they like to think. I did it for three reasons:

1. Consistency with other categories of financial service companies, e.g Category:Investment management companies, where companies such as Fidelity, LeggMason and Franklin Templeton have substantial UK operations, but are categorised as US (I think rightly).

2. List of private equity firms lists headquarters of each PE firm

3. There is already one "country" category, Category:Private equity companies of Norway

I think the test is this: can you say that x firm is an American firm, or a British firm? That is likely be determined by where policy and management decisions are made, i.e. "headquarters", not where investments are made. I think in most cases you can, although there are some cases, e.g. CVC Capital Partners, where you possibly cannot.

I would contrast this with the international accounting firms, which have different structures (different firms, different ownership, same name) - although I see that PricewaterhouseCoopers is categorised as both a US and a UK firm.Mhockey (talk) 08:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I did remove all of the companies from the category. This is just plain overcategorization. The fundamental question is are you (1) going to force categorize every firm by country or (2) are you going to have the category with 85% of the firms and then a small subcategory for British firms (since I noticed you only seem to be concerned about subcategorizing UK organizations.
I understand that although you have an agenda to categorize UK organizations. In certain areas that is helpful. Within Private Equity Firms which are already segmented by function (between LBO firms and VC firms) this is not a helpful subcategorization. I would encourage you to think more closely about what function you are trying to perform and explain why you think for a user that this is a helpful subcategorization. As far as your justifications:
(1) If any of the companies in the Norwegian category were really private equity firms (except for Ferd which I listed in both categories) I might have done the same thing. As they are all a mix of state run funds and holding companies I figured to just leave it alone.
(2) I think the investment management firm categories is a prime example of what not to do. There is a UK category, a US category and then the rest. That is not proper organization. (And I did notice that you created the UK category so it is not exactly the most relevant precedent for me).
If there were hundreds and hundreds of listings I might be swayed that it is a necessary evil but at this point I think it is just fine the way it is. Happy to discuss further if necessary. |► ϋrbanяenewaℓTALK ◄| 15:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The answer to your first question is that I would categorise by country, where a PE firm can be said to be directed or managed from a particular country. I do not have any agenda to categorise UK companies. But when categories get too large to be useful to anyone looking at a category, then it is worth subcategorizing to help the reader trying to find comparable groups of articles. That is what WP:CATEGORY urges us to do. UK companies just happen to be an area that I know about. If anyone wants to find articles on PE firms in the UK, Category:Private equity firms is too unwieldy. Anyone who wants to find articles on investment management companies in the UK (of which Category:Private equity firms of the United Kingdom is a subcat but Category:Private equity firms is not) would have an even bigger problem.
I'm not sure of the point you're making on investment management companies. Of course it is not satisfactory at present, but I think the fix is more subcategories, not fewer. Your argument would, I think, bar country categories for banks, insurance companies and articles outside the financial services area - e.g. airlines, law firms - all of which are international businesses. I'm not sure why you think PE firms should be different.
This is not overcategorization, quite the reverse. As a general principle, more precise categories give you the opportunity to reduce the number of categories for each article, because each category can point to more than one higher category.
As I said in my last post, I think the test is: can you say that x firm is a US firm, or a UK firm?
To get more views on this, I will put a note on the PE task force talk page.Mhockey (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
You can get whatever other views you would like.United Kingdom Given you are not even a member of the task force, I think your whole approach is a little offputting and I very rarely get too personally involved in these discussions.United Kingdom I am in no rush...do whatever you want for the time being.United Kingdom I think ultimately it is a net negative and you have done nothing to convince me.United Kingdom I want to have a single category for PE firms so that users that go to the main category can see all of the other firms.United Kingdom I guess eventually I will push for deletion. United Kingdom|► ϋrbanяenewaℓTALK ◄| 03:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Harwell Science and Innovation Campus[edit]

Good work, it looks like we both had the same idea, to improve the article in the face of someone determined to have it deleted. Your edit got in first, so I faced an "edit conflict". I don't feel like going through it yet again tonight, so I've dumped what I wrote here: User:JRawle/HSIC. It's not as well referenced as yours, but please feel free to include any information from there that you see fit! Regards, JRawle (Talk) 23:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks, I have added the additional info and refs from your article. One thing I haven't done is change the list of organisations on the campus. I agree with you that the STFC doesn't really belong in that list - they just own part of the site, and are not based there. I'll leave it to you to update the list if you wish. (Incidentally, I think there's no harm in linking items in the list, even if they are linked elsewhere in the article - WP:MOSLINK allows that.) Mhockey (talk) 11:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Excellent! I've tweaked the list of organisations, moved individual RAL facilities (i.e. ISIS) to the RAL section, and called it the STFC RAL. I've also clarified the fact that Diamond is on the RAL site, but is not part of RAL. I've left all the organisations in the list linked. I think I can delete my temporary page now. JRawle (Talk) 11:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Raleigh Park[edit]

Hey, I think that perhaps Raleigh Park should redirct to Raleigh Park, Oxfordshire rather the the Nottingham halls of residece article. Do you agree? Million_Moments (talk) 06:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Nottingham University halls of residence, so I find it difficult to judge. Google produces more hits for Nottingham, so I'd be inclined to leave it for now.Mhockey (talk) 01:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Green Line edits[edit]

A bit late now, but just a quick note to say thanks for your recent edits expanding some of the Green Line Coaches and related articles, especially the history sections - which needed to be expanded, as I didn't know anything about that! Once again, thanks! Arriva436talk/contribs 22:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Spitsbergen[edit]

Hi. Just so you know, it's spelled Spitsbergen, not Spitzbergen. It was discovered by the Dutch, not the Germans, who use the z spelling. You can thus only use the z-spelling in German, while you use the s-spelling in English, Dutch, Danish, Norwegian, etc. Jonas Poole (talk) 04:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I took my spelling from the IHO document (which is in English), but I guess fashions have changed since 1953! Mhockey (talk) 09:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Wakhan[edit]

Hi. I saw your last edit in Wakhan, where you changed the language saying Persian is more relevant, as Persian/Tajik is not spoken in the area. And both Tajik (already included) and Persian (you wanted to include) are actually the same language. 119.152.247.39 (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Persian and Tajik are the same language, but in different scripts. Since WP is a written medium, it is relevant to show both scripts. The reason for showing Persian is that it is one of the two official languages of Afghanistan, and it is used in the Badakhshan article and other articles on northern Afghanistan. But if you think Pashto, and Wakhi for that matter, is also relevant, I'd be happy to show those languages too. Mhockey (talk) 12:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that Pashto and Wakhi are both relevant there, but unfortunately Wakhi has no written form, although it is an indigenous language still spoken by over 30000 people and preserve many archaic features of Pashto, Bactrian, etc. In this case the Persian word is same as Pashto واخان, and I think there is no need to add Persian. 119.152.247.39 (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. The article on Wakhi says that it is written in Arabic, Cyrillic and Latin script. This source says that it is writtten in Arabic script. Ethnologue says that, at least in Tajikistan, it is not a written language, although that seems to be in the context of Tajikistan (and seems to be wrong if WP can show an example in Cyrillic script!). The WTCA website seems to use Roman script, but that may be to do with keyboard limitations. Do you have any more direct knowledge? Mhockey (talk) 13:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: Piped links and redirects[edit]

Hi, don't give another thought to my pedantic "redirect" corrections. Someone has taught me that it is better to have a piped link targeted directly to the right article rather than a link that generates an automatic redirect. That's why I changed [[Gorno-Badakhshan]] (a redirect) to [[Gorno-Badakhshan Autonomous Province|Gorno-Badakhshan]] (a direct pipe). This is just pedantic nonsense. Your original correction (eliminating a piped link that leads to a redirect) was the important change. Please don't take offense. --Zlerman (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ports and harbours of the Sea of Marmara[edit]

Hi! Plz se my talk page. CeeGee (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Possibly of interest s:Omnibuses and Cabs[edit]

At Wikisource, our Proofread of the Month is s:Omnibuses and Cabs and as you seem to have a generic interest in the subject matter, I thought that I would bring it to your attention. -- billinghurst (talk) 02:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Crashing bores[edit]

Hi - I've noticed you making a lot of useful edits up-Thames, but was I particularly glad to see your spin-offs from the Severn and Trent. Good stuff Regards Motmit (talk) 09:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Severn bore[edit]

Respectfully, you did not give a reason (definition) as to how the site is not official.

I did not lightly raise the status to "offical" because the site is referred to from the Stroud government site, an official recommendation, and the site is based upon the book The Severn Bore who's author and book are cited in a footnote on the website.

That ought to be sufficient qualification per all of the "strict"(none) requirements as found in the template "official". WurmWoodeT 06:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have responded on the article's talk page. Thanks also for the link to the district council page - I have added it to the article. Mhockey (talk) 08:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay. I like your objection. It's well stated, but I'll still disagree. In other contexts for this template, I wouldn't. I've made my counter-point on the talk page. If some other editors could just weigh-in, I'd like to find out if the template should have some documented guidelines added or, in this case, confirmation whether Higgins site is something other than a "fan" site, as I think you imply.
WurmWoodeT 07:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Places formerly in Cheshire[edit]

I see you've created Category:Places formerly in Cheshire. I don't know if you already know, but a similar category, Category:Places formerly in Lancashire, was recently deleted at CFD. I have opened a discussion at WT:GM, which you are welcome to contribute to. Mr Stephen (talk) 15:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Wakhjir Pass article[edit]

Just wanted to say thanks for creating the Wakhjir Pass article. It's probably the best history of the pass in the English language. I am writing my thesis on the Pamirs and I found it quite helpful. David Straub (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:National Scenic Trails of the United States[edit]

Hi - I see you reverted my edit to the above category. As Category:National Trails of the United States is a child category of Category:Hiking trails in the United States, Category:National Scenic Trails of the United States should not be included in Category:Hiking trails in the United States. Gjs238 (talk) 11:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't deliberately reverting you, I thought I had forgotten to add the cat. My rationale is that National Historic Trails - a large category of National Trails - are mostly not hiking trails, so I do not think Category:National Trails of the United States should be a child category of Category:Hiking trails in the United States. I agree that National Recreation Trail should not be in Category:Hiking trails in the United States, but I think both Category:National Recreation Trails of the United States and Category:National Scenic Trails of the United States should be. Mhockey (talk) 11:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, on reflection, I think Category:National Scenic Trails of the United States should be in Category:Long-distance trails in the United States, and I've made that edit, but Category:National Recreation Trails of the United States inludes shorter trails and should be in Category:Hiking trails in the United States.Mhockey (talk) 10:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:National Recreation Trails of the United States now put in Category:Hiking trails in the United States, and Category:National Trails of the United States removed from that category.--Mhockey (talk) 10:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Walking (film) and Category:Walking[edit]

Hi. I see you've removed Category:Walking from Walking (film). It is an Oscar-nominated film about the way people walk and I believe it may be of interest to people looking exploring the Walking category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Can I suggest that you amend the text of Walking (film) to explain that? WP:CAT says that it should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories.Mhockey (talk) 10:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
For sure. I will wait until the text explains that, with citation, before adding the category back. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Bridleroutes[edit]

I'd never heard this word until spotting the category Category:Bridleroutes in the United Kingdom added to a page on my watchlist. I looked at it to see if it was a typo (or Americanism!) for "Bridleway" and see it's "for routes in the National Bridleroute Network of the British Horse Society.", but the British Horse Society article doesn't mention them except in a link to the category! Could you please add some info somewhere in WP to tell us about these entities or this neologism? Thanks. PamD (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I had not heard of it either until I saw it on the BHS website here. I've just checked the OED and it hasn't heard of it either (yet). I guess the BHS chose the word because they felt bridleway would not really convey the concept of a continuous long route (although you might think the Pennine Bridleway was a precedent). A quick Google search shows up a few instances of the word being used wth a small b, mostly by local authorities, but apparently not on he BHS website. I could add a few words to the BHS article and the bridle path article, and do a redirect. Or do you think the category title should be changed (e.g. to Bridleways of the UK or Bridle routes of the UK)?--Mhockey (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
If there was a long horse riding trail in UK, but not one of the BHS list of Bridleroutes, would you include it in the cat? Perhaps rename to Category:Horse trails in the United Kingdom, to generalise? I've added a "redirect" note to the target of Bridleway, and added a bit to clarify the distinction between "bridleroute" and "bridleway" in the UK. PamD (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think your question is a bit hypothetical - surely if there were any other long horse trails in the UK the BHS would include them in their network? Your message actually caught me when I was editing Bridle path myself, to expand it using material from the rights of way articles. I went ahead wih my edit, and I was also going to change the redirect of Bridleway to Bridle path. Seems a bit UK-centric (or even England-centric) to redirect it to Rights of way in England and Wales.--Mhockey (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S.I've just noticed that the Bucks C.C leaflet on the Swan's Way, printed in 1990, uses the word "bridleroute" with a small b. Maybe we should tell the OED!--Mhockey (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

False positive report[edit]

The other day you submitted a false positive report because you found yourself unable to edit someone's talk page. If you have not already seen, it was due to an accident in the code of a particular edit filter which was quickly fixed by the MediaWiki software itself. The code has been reverted to the last good version and this should not happen again. Thank you for bringing this to our attention, however; if people hadn't reported it we wouldn't have known there was a problem. I have removed the false positive reports as I felt it was easier to just go to the people who submitted them directly. Soap 23:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you are well-traveled.[edit]

Tisane talk/stalk 09:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

...and retired!--Mhockey (talk) 09:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on WHT. VERY appreciated by someone only semi-retired.Sfcardwell (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Little Pamir[edit]

I am happy to see the article on Little Pamir finally created. I hope the article will grow further. A map should be easy, but there will hopefully emerge some photographs also along the way to illustrate the article. I'm not sure you have seen it, but there was a documentary in a TV series which I believe was called Trailblazers, I think I saw it on Discovery Channel around 2000-2002, which featured a trek to Little Pamir. I have attempted to find some info about the program online, but I have been unable to do so. The series was quite comparable to Lonely Planet I remember. I was just wondering if you have seen it and could point towards where to find it. I was utterly fascinated by it and Little Pamir has ever since been thoroughly imprinted in my soul as a place of great wonder that I would really like to visit some time, even if not in this lifetime. __meco (talk) 22:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I found a tour from the adventure travel company "Wild Frontiers" that looked quite interesting. I figured you might like to see it. __meco (talk) 22:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Little Pamir[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Little Pamir at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! RlevseTalk 21:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Little Pamir[edit]

RlevseTalk 18:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for you expansions of Central Asian related places. I started most of them myself so it is good to see you expand them. If you can access any more population/info about any other Afghan villages please expand them! Dr. Blofeld 09:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Loop trails[edit]

Sorry Mhockey, that I didn't respond before, re: Category:Trails--Category:Footpaths--Category:Hiking trails. Thank you for followup notice today. I do agree with your idea and actions, to edit out the category-parent looping. Thanks, --Look2See1 t a l k → 19:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Cook and Mount McKinley[edit]

Thank you for reverting me! I have posted at Talk:Frederick Cook but I am effectively asking for your opinion. Thincat (talk) 21:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

United Counties Omnibus[edit]

I like what you did there. Good to see someone taking an interest in articles of that type, as most of them just sit there unedited for years. I hope you do some more! Alzarian16 (talk) 09:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Karasu (Hatay)[edit]

Hey there! I am the first to admit that I am utterly ignorant with regards to geography but could you let me know how many rivers there are named Karasu in Turkey? I'd like to salvage what I wrote in the original article. I was sure I wasn't talking about the one in Japan, and the sources appeared to back up that assertion. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of at least five in Turkey, the three listed in Karasu (disambiguation), a small tributary of the Aras River in Igdir (that's the one in the picture) and a river that flows into Lake Van. There are probably more. I have done an article on the Euphrates one, using some of your stuff. There are also some in Central Asia (I think some of your material referred to them). Confusing!--Mhockey (talk) 23:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. That is confusing! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 11:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Query[edit]

Care to respond to response, at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Cheshire? -- Cirt (talk) 04:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Saying that pages counts are irrelevant[edit]

The guidelines at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC say they are, so consider that when you comment on move discussions Purplebackpack89 19:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course they are are relevant. I haven't said that they are not! You were trying to say that page counts for a different article (not being considered for a move) were relevant, and in move discussions you need to focus on the term being considered for the move.--Mhockey (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
In a disambiguation or primary topic sense, it's reasonably understood that ALL pages with similar titles are relevant Purplebackpack89 22:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
If you mean that page counts for similar titles are relevant to determining the primary topic, I disagree. They are a distraction from discussion of the term being considered for the move.--Mhockey (talk) 08:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
How so? Remember, in each of these cases multiple moves are proposed Purplebackpack89 18:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

By "multiple" I assume you mean Cambridge and Cambridge (disambiguation). I don't see any proposal to move Cambridge, Massachusetts.--Mhockey (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

SBS Bank[edit]

Hi.New Page Patrollers have been unable to pass this article as patrolled for 30 days. The claims made in the article are unsubstantiated. Please provide independent third-party references according to requirements at WP:RS and WP:V that prove the notability of this bank. Otherwise the article may soon be reduced to a small stub or proposed for deletion. Thanks, --Kudpung (talk) 11:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I have expanded the article a little, with more sources. I am not sure what is meant by the statement that the "claims made in the article are unsubstantiated" - if it refers to the claim made by the company that it is the only building society to have become a bank while retaining its mutual status, that claim is properly referenced to the company itself, in compliance with WP:RS. (Whether the claim is right or not is a different matter.)
Generally, the multiple issues template is not appropriate for a stub, see Template:Multiple issues/doc#See also. --Mhockey (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

IP block exempt[edit]

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. -- Cirt (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have now moved out of the accommodation with the problematic IP address (I was only there 3 days), and back at my usual IP address. --Mhockey (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Formulary apportionment[edit]

Thanks for reviewing the formulary apportionment article I created. I notice you added a {{citation needed}} tag on one statement. But the statement is already verified in the source cited. Further verification is also available by looking at the primary documents in question; I posted the relevant extracts on the talk page. Hope that answers your question. Cheers, Eric Baer (talk) 11:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Replied on Talk:Formulary apportionment. --Mhockey (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Mhockey. You have new messages at Talk:Green_Bay,_Wisconsin.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Denomination of churches[edit]

By what ecclesiastical authority granted to you, are you permitted to unilaterally change the denomination of a church?[1]--Aspro (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh. I also see that someone created this category without adhering to the WP naming convention, hence the confusion. Can you rename it to Church of England churches in London for us to avoid the mess from growing please? --Aspro (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't, but either of us can list it at WP:CFDS. I have now done so. --Mhockey (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank for that. I have added my support to the nomination.--Aspro (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Transport in Somerset[edit]

Nice work on Transport in Somerset. Unfortunately it looks like all your work (and mine) was undone by Francis Williams. I'm backing off for a while as I don't want to get dragged down to his level. I asked Rodw to take a look. You may want to fix things too. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 21:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree there is a WP:OWN issue here. I have added my support to your comments on his talk page, and I agree that it was right to notify his threats at WP:ANI. --Mhockey (talk) 10:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Perhaps you coud add your US$0.02 at the ANI discussion? He seems entirely unapologetic. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 19:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled[edit]

Wikipedia Autopatrolled.svg

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

  • This permission does not give you any special status or authority
  • Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
  • You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
  • If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 21:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Multiculturalism[edit]

Regarding this edit: I think it would be a good idea to try to keep the article focused on multiculturalism, rather than the term "multiculturalism". If you're unsure of what I mean by this, see WP:UMD and Use–mention distinction. Gabbe (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you can focus on multiculturalism unless there is an understanding of what it "means" - which actually means how the term is used. The problem with the article is that it is used to mean different things in different contexts. WP:UMD is a different point, but I have now changed one "refers to" to "means", thanks. --Mhockey (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Category changes[edit]

Firstly I have no problem of the changes you have been making to categories in some of the articles I watch. I'd just like to let you know of a tool that may be of use to you. HotCat allows you to easily add, remove and edit categories without clicking on the edit button. If you're interested head to the linked page and follow the instructions to enable it in your profile. If you have any questions feel free to ask me. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I just looked further up my watchlist and it appears you already know about this tool. If you're interested in using it to replace a category click the plus/minus sign next to a particular category. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I use Hotcat when I can, but with the broadband connection I have it often does not work, especially for longer articles. --Mhockey (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Culvert (The Centre, Bristol)[edit]

OED defines a culvert as "a tunnel carrying a stream or open drain under a road or railway". I really do think 'culverted and covered' is a tautology. Are you sure you don't agree?RedSquirrel (talk) 12:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

OED online defines culvert as "A channel, conduit, or tunneled drain of masonry or brick-work conveying a stream of water across beneath a canal, railway embankment, or road". It seems to me that the distinguishing feature is the masonry or brick-work rather than the cover, i.e. a culvert could be uncovered. In the case of the Centre, it was the covering which allowed its development, rather than just the channelling of the river. --Mhockey (talk) 13:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
The definition I gave comes from askoxford.com and is very clearly a tunnel. My 1934 Concise Oxford has a definition very similar to the one you've used, and again it is clear that the culvert goes under something ('across beneath' being the key phrase). However if we can't agree what the definition means, maybe could just use the phrase 'covered over' and be done? RedSquirrel (talk) 13:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
This is the link to the online OED definition. I'm fine with your suggestion. I notice that Winstone has a photo (1939-1914, photo 31) with a caption "The work [covering of the River Froom] is half completed, with the culvert for the river well advanced", suggesting a distinction at least in his mind.--Mhockey (talk) 13:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, it's funny how one's perceptions can differ - I was actually introduced to the concept of a culvert by Mr Winstone's excellent tome, but I did not perceive the suggestion of a distinction in his mind as you did. Any road up (as it were) I suppose it is probably clearer to the casual reader to avoid the term! RedSquirrel (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Bristol Bridge[edit]

Just so you know, I plan to expand Bristol Bridge shortly in much the way I have just done Old Market. Obviously I'll keep the bit you've just added about trams! RedSquirrel (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Company[edit]

With respect, are you quite certain that what you say is exactly correct? Eddaido (talk) 08:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Quite certain as far as unlimited companies are concerned - see Unlimited company. As far as wider usage is concerned, "company" as defined in the Companies Act does not include a partnership, and in company law and tax you would not refer to an unincorporated entity such as a partnership as a company, although in common speech where the distinction is not important you might. In the US the cite indicates that a company is legally defined to include a partnership, so there does seem to be a difference here between US and British English. --Mhockey (talk) 09:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah, so you are saying you know as little about it as I do. Now, I've tried to understand what you have written (two places), please go back and see that your change paraphrased what I wrote! Let's hope for someone who knows to turn up. By the way benefices are obsolescent in the CofE because of some European directive not yet in force. Eddaido (talk) 09:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I spent most of my career working with company law, and I am confident that what I have written is right - and I do not agree that it paraphrased what you wrote. It seemed to me that your wording ("in the same way") implied that UK and US usage was the same, and your wording said that "company" meant a limited liability company, ignoring the existence of unlimited companies and using a term (limited liability company) which has a quite different meaning in the US.
If you disagree with the last 2 edits at Benefice, one by me and one by another editor, may I suggest that you raise it on that article's talk page? Thanks. --Mhockey (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I spent (by my own standards) a lot of time on benefice which is why I still watch. My response was just to your comment in your edit summary.
Would you consider putting some effort (with me) into the Company article? It is difficult to strike the right balance in Wikipedia between precision and minimum detail using language that allows no confusion to a casual reader. Eddaido (talk) 08:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Walking[edit]

Mhockey - I have noticed that you have contributed to the List of people who have walked across the United States, and cordially invite you to participate in a new WikiProject Walking that I have proposed. Your support for the project, active or passive, would be appreciated. Bezza84 (talk) 20:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Mhockey. You have new messages at Ghmyrtle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

x2

Boissevain family[edit]

Just thought I'd better point out that your edits at Boissevain family, Bijleveld (Westfalen) and Brimah (all of which I've reverted), have for some reason replaced the square brackets with hashes.Ruskinmonkey (talk) 08:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, there must have been some kind of processing problem. But why do you think the first two should be in Category:Families and its subcat Category:Dutch families and that cat's subcat Category:Dutch patrician families? --Mhockey (talk) 13:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid the technicalities are quite beyond me. I found the problem while amusing myself trawling the depths of Wikipedia by going through an alphabetical list of untagged dead-end pages (which is why all 3 begin with "B"...) Ruskinmonkey (talk) 10:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Pennine Way[edit]

Nice upgrade to the article ... but could you stick in a few sources so it doesn't look like WP:OR? Thanks. PamD 12:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Now done, thanks. --Mhockey (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Looks good - much easier at this stage than when someone slams an {{unref}} on it at some point in future! PamD 18:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
... though on looking again, aren't you supposed to list the Collins book as a source somehow, rather than just leave it as one of the items listed in Further reading? I've not sourced an article with multiple refs from a book like this, so not familiar with the exact technique. PamD 18:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

CFD for Dover[edit]

I know the previous discussion closed recently but I feel there needed to be more consensus. Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_September_1#Dover, Kent (again). Simply south...... eating shoes for 5 years So much for ER 18:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hil figures[edit]

Could you recategorise three more categories I've created, Category:Hill figures in Scotland, Category:Hill figures in Canada and Category:Hill figures in the United States? Thanks. Simply south...... eating shoes for 5 years So much for ER 18:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Crown Estate Paving Commission[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Crown Estate Paving Commission has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No reason given why this subject is notable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dkchana (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey[edit]

NPPbarnstar.jpg

New page patrol – Survey Invitation


Hello Mhockey! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.


You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Hundreds[edit]

I see you've been moving articles from Foo (hundred) to Hundred of Foo. Has there been any more discussion since this? My own preference was for Foo Hundred, which seemed to me to be the more common usage (as well as aiding sorting). I think it warrants wider discussion before going further. --Mhockey (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I like Foo Hundred, but when I did a sources search for each of the moves, Hundred of Foo was the most common. While I would like to go with mine and yours personal preference, the point of the moves is to put the titles into most common usage, be it Foo Hundred or Hundred of Foo. If anyone does their own search and finds that the title is incorrect, then it would be appropriate to correct it. And I certainly wouldn't object to any of the articles being either Hundred of Foo or Foo Hundred as in most cases both terms are used, and anything is better than Foo (hundred)! SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

This is just to say thank you for the superb work you have done on categories recently. I came across it in relation to Windsor and Maidenhead, but I see there is a lot more. LynwoodF (talk) 06:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Ditto that, regarding Southampton/Hampshire. You might be interested in joining WP:HANTS, it could certainly do with a boost! waggers (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Categories - Bradford etc[edit]

Hallo, I see that overnight you have created a new set of categories for "Bradford District". Did you discuss such a major set of changes with any other editors? Given the amount of discussion at Talk:Bradford and Talk:City of Bradford I am sure there will be strong views on this once people see your changes. Please do not do anything similar for Leeds without discussion. PamD 08:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not think it was partioularly radical. It's consistent with other metropolitan districts, where in almost all cases there are separate categories for the district and city, including recent changes to Category:Wakefield, which attracted no adverse comment. It helps to clean up inconsistencies, e.g. Category:People from Bradford v. Category:People from Bradford (district). I did read the discussions on the article talk pages, and noted that there was little or no support for merging the two articles, and given that, extending the separation of categories did not seem very controversial.
I believe that the category structure for Leeds needs some rationalisation, to bring some semblance of consistency with other large cities and districts, but that would be a much tougher nut to crack than Wakefield or Bradford, and I agree that would need discussion on how to achieve it.--Mhockey (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Bach cantata[edit]

You added the category Pentecost to one Bach cantata. He wrote several for Pentecost, several for Christmas, about 200 are extant, there is the list List of Bach cantatas by liturgical function, take it from there, - but we could also leave it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Categories - Medway etc[edit]

I can see that you are trying to tidy up this cat- good luck, but do be careful the geography of the towns is such that few can say where one starts and the other ends, and some things are best left alone. For instance the Royal Engineers have been based at Chatham for 400 years. Some of their barracks were built in the village of Upper Brompton, on the Chatham Lines. Some local government act created a new borough between the hamlet of Gillingham Green and the new station at New Brompton, Upper Brompton was included. So the the Engineers were based in Chatham yet the museum is in Gillingham. And the boundaries will change before the next election so some wards will also change their names. Step carefully.--ClemRutter (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I have tried to base the categorisation on what the articles actually say, but I have no special local knowledge, so no problem if you want to change any of my edits. If you do change a cat, it would be worth checking the text to make sure it supports the cat. --Mhockey (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that you have removed the category Medway from St. Margaret's Church, Rochester and History of Rochester, Kent. Although Rochester used to be in Kent, and is of course still in the ceremonial county of Kent, it is now a part of Medway Unitary Authority. Most locals tend to think of themselves as in Kent, certainly many from outside the area do, but legally it is Medway. I'll replace the categories, unless anyone wishes to start a discussion on the talk pages. I suspect that many articles on the area ought to be in both Kent and Medway. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Category:Rochester, Kent is a subcategory of Category:Medway, which is a subcategory of Category:Kent. Generally, articles should not be in both a parent category and its child category. There are exceptions, per WP:SUBCAT, but I do not think this is one of them. --Mhockey (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah I see what you mean. I thought the issue was with the Kent/Medway confusion, but I'd forgotton that there was yet another category, Rochester itself. Both history and St Mags both ought to be in the Rochester category, but I agree all three would be overkill. If Rochester is correctly categorised then they will be findable, which after all is the whole aim of the system. I've removed both of them for you. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mhockey, I would appreciate your opinion in the case southermost. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Harwell, Nottinghamshire[edit]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

List of rock formations in the United Kingdom[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of rock formations in the United Kingdom. proposal regarding the scope of the list. -- Bejnar (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Halifax[edit]

Where is the discussion in progress? You mean the archived discussion that came to a standstill back in January? How much longer do you need to sit on this one? Let's go, do something already. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 02:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Seriously, we've discussed this for FIVE YEARS. FOR FIVE YEARS, PEOPLE HAVE BEEN OUTRIGHT CONFUSED BY THAT DAB PAGE. Clearly something needs to be done but oh no, we still need MORE of a consensus to be formed. Sure, let's spend another 50 years yapping about it but doing absofrigginlutely nothing to fix it. That's clearly working so well as it is. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 04:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Goole[edit]

Sorry - your edit doesn't make sense to me. Goole is a town. Please take it to categories for discussion for further opinions.

As an example Category:London is in Category:Capitals in Europe - the contents are not capitals - it's just common sense to place it there.Oranjblud (talk) 19:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

There is already a discussion in progress on eponymous categories here. It does not seem to be making a lot of progress. But there does seem to be some consensus that the categorisation of an article with an eponymous category should not necessarily be the same as the categorisation of the eponymous category.
Goole is a town and the article is correctly categorised as a town. But it does not necessarily follow that all articles relating to the topic of Goole (i.e. those in Category:Goole) should be in a subcat of Category:Towns in the East Riding of Yorkshire, because most of them do not relate to the topic of towns in the East Riding. But they clearly all do relate to the topic of the East Riding.
You will find lots of inconsistencies in WP categorisation. You point to Category:London. I can point to Category:Kingston upon Hull. Through the fog, it is important to remember what categories are for - they are aids to finding articles. --Mhockey (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Tax Lien Merge[edit]

I saw that you had mentioned a merge in tax lien sale.

I just officially put the merge templates in place as the Tax Deed section should be part of the Tax Lien section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterWesco (talkcontribs) 18:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

First ever Oxford Wiki Meetup[edit]

You are invited to the first ever Oxford Wiki Meetup which will take place at The Four Candles, 51 George Street, Oxford, OX1 2BE on Sunday 4 November 2012 from 1.00 pm.

I hope as many people as possible will be able to attend so that we can make this a regular event. If you have never been to one, this is an opportunity to meet other Wikipedians in an informal atmosphere for Wiki and non-Wiki related chat and for beer or food if you like. Experienced and new contributors are all welcome. This event is definitely not restricted just to discussion of Oxford related topics. Bring your laptop if you like and use the free Wifi or just bring yourself. Even better, bring a friend! Click the link for full details. Looking forward to seeing you. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Districts of Basingstoke[edit]

Category:Districts of Basingstoke, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Green Giant (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Deserted medieval villages[edit]

Hi. As a contributor to List of lost settlements in the United Kingdom, you might be interested to see a discussion that's just opened on "How to Write about... Deserted Medieval Villages" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements. GrindtXX (talk) 02:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Check changes of Category: Pompeii[edit]

Hi Mhockey,

Could I ask that you go through the changes you made to the pages which linked to Category:Pompeii - you have inadvertently linked individuals from the Roman gens Pompeii to the ancient city of Pompeii, but the family has no relationship to the city. Could you please revise those pages of individuals named Pompeius (eg Gnaeus Pompeius (consul 31 BC), and link them to the Category:Pompeii (gens)?

Thanks. Oatley2112 (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I found one entry in the ambiguous category Category:Pompeii, which should be empty. Apologies if I moved it to the wrong category, I suggest that you move it to the right category.
BTW, you inadvertently placed my talk page in Category:Pompeii. I have now corrected that.--Mhockey (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Genealogy article discussion[edit]

I strongly agree with you about the need to merge the definitions of family history and genealogy. Best wishes, Murphynw (talk) 02:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The Poultry Cross[edit]

Hi, as you didn't leave an explanatory note I'm curious to know why you've moved "The Poultry Cross" to "Poultry Cross". Richard Avery (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The reason is in WP:THE - I don't think this article meets any of the exceptions to the general rule that we don't include the definite article in article titles.--Mhockey (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Socks and deletion[edit]

It's standard protocol. You're welcome to re-create the stub yourself. DS (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorting of churches[edit]

Hi. Sorry but I don't have time to discuss this now, as I'm off for a few days. My own opinion is that "it all depends". More after the weekend. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm back, and have replied on my talk page so that if anyone wants to continue a discussion it will be together on one page. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Invite[edit]

The category edits you've done for Farnham and Guildford are greatly appreciated, thank you, Pjposullivan (talk) 03:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


Editor of the Week[edit]

Editor of the week barnstar.svg Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week, for diligent article creation. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

This editor is a long-distance walker. Not just in real life but, most important to our reader, a long-distance article creator for Wikipedia. An examination of Mhockey/contributions tells the story of an editor with almost 30,000 (83%) of his edits toward article creation and significant revisions as well as dozens of categories created. Remarkably only 2% of his edits are at talk pages which displays a true gift for concise editing and trouble-free (no drama!) work. His diverse areas of interest include Walking, Topography, Continents, Rivers, People, etc. An editor like this deserves to be rewarded with the Editor of the Week Award.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}
Project editor retention.svg
Editor of the week.svg
Oxford University Coat Of Arms.svg
Mhockey
Oxford University Alum
 
Editor of the Week
for the week beginning March 2, 2014
Interests and input as varied as walking trails, topography, Polar exploration, company law, transportation and Oxfordshire.
Recognized for
being a local historian and editor.
Nomination page

Thanks again for your efforts! Go Phightins! 19:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Renaming of category[edit]

Please see my proposal to speedily rename Category:Proposed bridges in United Arab Emirates to Category:Proposed bridges in the United Arab Emirates Hugo999 (talk) 04:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC) (PS: congratulations re above)