User talk:Ddstretch

To start a new talk topic, please click here. I will normally respond here as well.

How do you get all the badges on the right side? I want some of them!!! Kingalex1st (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

SandBoxes
• CP x Settlmnt
• Settlmnt x CP
• "Former ..." Artcl
• Artcl for CP in Ches
• Misc1
• Misc2
• EP Tmplt
• CP Tmplt

Category:Parishes of Europe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Listed buildings in Runcorn, Cheshire

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

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

Goostrey

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

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

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

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

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

Rand

Yeah, it's just hardly worth it. These editors on that page are fanatics. They just try to wear people down. I'm probably going to move away from the political figures and stick to the academic pages where there is less of this hassle. I still think it's unfortunate that a few cultists are able to distort and interfere with an entire article. I also agree with you that there is way too much nonsense on that page, and "the less said the better". A ton of the material on Rand (particularly the Objectivism article) is just low-brow original research consisting of fawning quotes from her followers. It's a joke. But it would take an outright war to change any of that. The problem is that there are very few fair editors who would even bother taking these fanatics on. Like you said, most of us simply have better things to do. CABlankenship (talk) 04:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)