User talk:Dr Greg

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

Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:

  • Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.
Thus, if I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
  • Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
  • Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
  • Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
  • To initiate a new conversation on this page, please click on this link.
  • You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).

List of English districts by population[edit]

For a few weeks now List of English districts by population has been slowly wrecked by (presumably) one person. Just wondering if you could help address this? Argovian (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Preston map[edit]

Hello, about this edit. The problem is that Preston is currently a disambiguation page. As a result, some pages using this map will show a link to that dab page, instead of the correct link to the Lancashire city. Example: Fernyhalgh Wood. Is there a way to fix this, e.g. by adding a parameter with the correct link to use? --Midas02 (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

This is currently being discussed at Module talk:Location map#"name" parameter. There is some ambiguity about what exactly the {{{name}}} parameter should be. I hope we can work out a sensible solution soon. -- Dr Greg  talk  19:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok thanks, I'll leave it to you then. --Midas02 (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - July 2015[edit]

Delivered July 2015 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

22:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Historic County[edit]

Hi, I presume you're aware of County Palatine of Lancaster? I have a range of issues with it but am unsure of the best course of action. Do you have any thoughts? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@Trappedinburnley: I've raised a question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography § County Palatine of Lancaster. No response yet. There may be a better place to discuss it? -- Dr Greg  talk  19:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Lancashire elections[edit]

I'm rather bemused by your revert and why you felt the need to shout in the edit summary. If you had actually looked, you'd have seen that I had already moved the articles before I fixed the links. Number 57 21:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Now I see you've also left me a message in bold text on my talk page. Please try to check what you're saying is true before making unfounded accusations. Thanks, Number 57 21:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Oops, my mistake. I should have read your edit summary a bit more carefully. My sincere apologies. Feel free to remove my complaint from your talk page if you wish. -- Dr Greg  talk  21:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
No problem :) Number 57 22:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

request for additional parameter[edit]

Hi Dr. Greg, I was wondering if we could add a construction manager parameter to the template infobox building? Construction management firms are hired and perform different work then anything that is listed under design and construction. They serve an integral role in quality control/assurance, budgeting, scheduling and assuring that a project runs smoothly. It has become an important part of the construction process in large projects/renovations so I think it would be beneficial to include it. Could you possibly do this for me? Keelsh01 (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

You have asked at Template talk:Infobox building which is the correct place to discuss this. Wait for a response there. However, you shouldn't have used {{edit template-protected}}; to quote the text in the template "Edit requests to template-protected pages should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus. If the proposed edit might be controversial, discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template."-- Dr Greg  talk  21:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - August 2015[edit]

Delivered August 2015 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

22:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by MrSean99[edit]

Information icon Hello Dr Greg. There is currently a discussion at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding disruptive editing by MrSean99. I'm just letting you know as a courtesy because I provided diffs to various warnings issued, some of them by you. Regards, Wdchk (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - September 2015[edit]

Delivered September 2015 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

01:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to Editathon at Clitheroe Castle Museum[edit]

Hi, I notice that you have edited the Clitheroe Castle article in the past. I am organising an editathon on 26th September, details here. If you would like to come, please let me know. Jhayward001 (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Template for the Manchester to Southport Line[edit]

I note that in the last editing of this template, DavidAHolt has deleted mention of the closed stations of Pendlebury, Irlams o' th' Height and Pendleton (Broad Street) railway station, which are all on the Manchester end of the template. However, there are still closed stations shown at the Southport end of the template, which is rather confusing. You either delete all the closed stations or none at all.

I am writing to you, as it appears that yours was the template version that was amended.

Paul Sidorczuk (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Look more closely. DavidAHull didn't delete stations, he added them! :) (I assume you refer to {{Manchester to Southport Line}} rather than some other template.) Although Pendleton was missing, so I've just added it. -- Dr Greg  talk  19:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

A couple of things[edit]

Hi Greg, hope you're well. Thanks for the new maps you've been adding. I'm wondering If I might be able to request one? A while back I started User:Trappedinburnley/Whalley (ancient parish), In order to complete it ideally requires a map similar to the one in Manchester (ancient parish). It is about the least urgent request you could get, but I'm planning to put some more work into it soon. I just need to learn a little more about the extra-parochial areas.

Also have you settled on format for the district templates at this stage, I think the Burnley and Ribble Valley ones would also be improved by breaking them up. I can do myself but it would seem best to have a consistent format as much as possible.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The Manchester map wasn't one of mine. I might be able to do something for Whalley, but I'd need some sources to consult to work out what was required. (By the way, you don't want to use ALL CAPS as that's against the style manual.) If you could find some appropriate maps on line, that would help me.
As for the district navboxes, it's my intention to update all of Lancashire to the same formats, but haven't got round to them all yet. I'll do Burnley soon. For the others, I'm waiting for User: Peter I. Vardy to complete his listed building lists for each district before I do each one. I think Ribble Valley is nearly done, so that will be next. -- Dr Greg  talk  22:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Map sources: VCHL6 pp349-60 at BHO - The Victoria History of the County of Lancaster Vol 6 at, and the 1840s OS maps available on MARIO (OS First Edition 1:10,000) might come in handy. Like I say, no rush, I'm going to be busy with this Clitheroe thing for a while. But I am hoping it will lead me to new sources as the extra-parochials seem to have been linked to the chapel at the castle.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 08:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Oops I forgot the tricky bit! While the VCH text mentions that a part of the parish was in Yorkshire, it doesn't include it in the map, probably because it is complicated. I don't know if you've ever been to the church at Whitewell? It is decorated with both the red and white roses to signify that although historically in Yorkshire it belonged to Whalley. This area principally includes Bowland with Leagram and Bowland Forest Low (but probably not Browseholme), however the old Bowland Forest Low had two detached portions, a small area called Slaidburn Flatts (just south of the village) and Harrop (now part of Grindleton). It would be nice to feature this area as it seems significant that although Bowland only became part of Lancashire in 74, it probably should have been included from the earliest times. Cheers --Trappedinburnley (talk) 09:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I've found another map of ancient Whalley parish at ; it shows detached Little Bowland + Leagram (i.e. modern-day Bowland-with-Leagram) but doesn't show any part in the West Riding (e.g. Whitewell). That may a different version. (You need to zoom in to see the detail; the zoomed-out map isn't very accurate.)
However there is also a map of Bowland Forest Low at (including Whitewell, and with an exclave at Harrop Fold, and another very tiny one just south of Slaidburn) which claims to be a sub-unit of Whalley. So I'm not sure why the two maps disagree. -- Dr Greg  talk  22:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
VoB is a great resource, but not without error. For some reason it thinks that Willington, Cheshire is somehow associated with Whalley, which is news to me. The problem seems to be Yorkshire. They've included Bowland with Leagram (always in Lancashire), but not Bowland Forest Low (the bit historically in West Yorkshire). The same seems to be true for the info in the VCH, I assume it was left for the corresponding West Riding book, which we're still waiting for. It is also is partially responsible for my confusion with the extra-parochials, some but not all have been omitted from the highlighted area. I have found something; In Whittaker's History of Whalley, he writes "Harrop, Countess Flat, near Slaydeburn, part of Burholme, and Browsholme, are within the parish of Whalley; and the same part of Burholme, with Browsholme and Little Bowland, constitute the Chapelry of Whitewell." p234 Oh and sorry I probably should have made it clear that this would be a lot more complicated than Manchester. Whalley is supposed to have been the 2nd largest parish in England. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Greg, I notice you've been away, I hope it has been a good break. I've finally got around to working on the Whalley article. Still lots to do with it and the many, many associated articles, both existing and probably some new also. It is starting to look like an article at least and I'm confident that we have or I can find the sources required for most of the article (certainly for the start and middle of a History section, less so for the end). Have you made any progress with a map I wonder? All the best. Trappedinburnley (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Greg, I'm not sure if you missed my last message. I took your silence as a no Face-smile.svg. It's no big deal if you're too busy I realize it is quite a complex request. Cheers Trappedinburnley (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

My apologies for not replying earlier. When I last looked at this, I didn't feel like I had sufficient reliable and unambiguous sources to work from, so it's been quite a low priority for me so far. As your draft article now has considerable content, I may start reconsidering this again. Feel free to throw any map sources you find at me, particularly those that show the relevant boundaries, but also those without boundaries that show the road and rail infrastucture of the time. (One question to be decided is and suitable year to take a snapshot of the parish, as things change over time.) One possible approach I may take is to begin with a modern-day map that I can source from OpenStreetMaps and then delete everything that is too recent for the map I want. -- Dr Greg  talk  20:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually, looking at the maps in other ancient parish articles, road and rail infrastructure isn't needed, so this may be less difficult than I first thought. -- Dr Greg  talk  21:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Not to worry, this is one of my 'never quite find the time' projects, and although it's finally starting to take shape, I left some of the more complex elements till last. It will probably still be a while until it's finished. There is another related article Rochdale (ancient parish). The maps in both cases cite the Lancs VCH as a source. The version here is quite hi-res and is zoom-able. I'm using the VCH as the chief source, and assuming that differences between it and VoB to be errors on the VoB database. It would be nice to get the rivers on, as they will often correspond to boundaries, but I don't think it's essential (like Rochdale). I doubt we'll find a map source more definitive than the first ed. OS, which effectively marks the end of the ancient parish. I've contemplated screen-grabbing the VCH map and tracing it manually on separate layer. I thought of the same approach with the OS map at MARIO but realized that I'd have to stitch together a lot of screen-grabs to get something of a high enough res to see the boundary marks. I would expect that in a lot of cases the modern parish boundaries will relate to the historic ones if you think it would be easier to work backwards. One difference with this one is that I'd like to get highlight the boundaries of the forest areas. Although probably only vaguely accurate, for our purposes I think they can be assumed to match the boundaries of the townships recorded to have been inside them. Thoughts? Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Another idea? What ever the method, maybe a smaller project as a test? Ribchester was comparatively tiny and I can soon knock together an article.[1] [2] Trappedinburnley (talk) 22:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - October 2015[edit]

Delivered October 2015 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

00:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hydrinics Analog Modulation.[edit]

"However, this cannot be the source of the term as Armstrong was an unknown college student when the term first appeared".

How can you remove my legitimate addition that calculates but something that is not sourced as "Quoted" stays?.

Do you know much about Hydronics?, Si, Frequency's or Modulation?.

Please put back my work untill you can prove it incorrect. Or I will do something about it. Don't waste both of our time. What you did is considered malicious in the Wiki guildlines.

Removing a legitimate post is not "editing"!.

Thank you.

Jason Evan Baldwin.

Undolie (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you may be confusing me with another editor. I don't recall any edit I made referring to "However, this cannot be the source of the term as Armstrong was an unknown college student when the term first appeared". Please specify which article and provide a diff.
But I would comment that when you add material to an article the onus is on you to proved a reference to a WP:reliable source to prove it, not on other editors to disprove it. Reverting another editor's unsourced addition is entirely legitimate if it appears at all questionable. See WP:BRD. If what you add is correct, you should have no problem quoting a reliable source, in which case it won't be reverted provided it's relevant to the article and the source is accepted as being reliable.
Any further discussion should take place on the talk page of whatever article you are talking about. -- Dr Greg  talk  16:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - November 2015[edit]

Delivered November 2015 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

09:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense?, Who?, YOU!. High School Basic Algebra, Equal v Equivalent.[edit]

Correct Usage of Equal and Equivalent in Math Statements (undolie(: (talk)+~ =?.)

Go back to High School and leave the Equivalent-Relativity equations for the big boy's!. You are hindering the progress of 110 years old MISINTERPRETED formula!. PLEASE STOP REVERTING WHAT YOU OBVIOUSLY NO NOTHING ABOUT, BASIC HIGH SCHOOL MATHS AND ENERGY "EQUIVALENCE / RELATIVELY", 110YEARS OF IGNORANCE, BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU!.


And where the hell you get DR from?. LMFAO. (HIGH SCHOOL MATHS DUDE).

Date: 02/20/2008 at 11:43:16 From: Valerie Subject: when do I use equal and when do I use equivalent properly?

Is there a mathematical difference between equal and equivalent and if so, what is the difference? For example:

Are two algebraic expressions (with the same solution set) equivalent or equal?

Are two numeric expressions (with the same value) equal or equivalent?

For example: is 10^4 equal to OR equivalent to 10 x 10 x 10 x 10?

We would write an Definitions between the two numeric expressions given above, but would we "say" they were equivalent or equal? Would we write a question properly that reads: Find an expression that is equal to OR equivalent to 10^4. ?

Date: 02/20/2008 at 23:45:39 From: Doctor Peterson Subject: Re: when do I use equal and when do I use equivalent properly?

Hi, Valerie.

Sometimes I think the terms "equal" and "equivalent" are, well, equivalent; their meanings overlap, and the precise distinction can vary from one case to another. But in general,

 equal means that two entities are the same entity
 equivalent means that two entities have the same EFFECT,
 in some sense

Two expressions can be called equal for some specific value of the variable, because they yield the same number; they are equivalent when they are ALWAYS equal--true for any value of the variable. So here "equivalent" is a stronger term.

Two equations are equivalent when they have the same solution set. (Note: an expression doesn't have a solution set!) You would never say that two equations are equal, because that would get very confusing!

Two sets are equivalent when they have the same cardinality (number of elements); they are equal when they are actually the same set (consisting of the same elements). Here "equal" would seem to be the stronger term!

Two fractions are equivalent when their values are equal; here I think the only reason to use the word "equivalent" rather than "equal" is to emphasize that they are two DIFFERENT ways to express the SAME value.

In your question about numerical expressions, I think "equivalent" would be the better choice, because, as with fractions, the emphasis is on an expression that looks different but has the same numerical value after you evaluate it. It wouldn't be wrong to say "equal", but this just feels a little more right.

If you have any further questions, feel free to write back.

- Doctor Peterson, The Math Forum 

Associated Topics: High School Basic Algebra High School Definitions Middle School Algebra Middle School Definitions (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - December 2015[edit]

Delivered December 2015 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

00:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - January 2016[edit]

Delivered January 2016 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

13:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


I saw your aside on the Windermere RM about the City of Carlisle thing, and entirely agree with you. Our handling of eponymous districts is problematic to put it mildly. It appeared to start with Salford, where there is severe ambiguity and neither topic appears primary. There are three related problems here:

  1. If the district council holds the city charter, how to describe the core settlement?
  2. How to disambiguate the two meanings - settlement and district?
  3. A third issue is when district is required to disambiguate - Hayton, Carlisle implies Hayton is a suburb not a village miles away.

I'm thinking an RFC is best way forward on this matter?--Nilfanion (talk) 12:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, RFC would seem to be the way to go. Not sure exactly where (I haven't thought about this), but it's something that could affect many articles, so it needs to be at some non-article talk page. ("City of Carlisle district", or even "Carlisle district" would be one way to go for districts; it's less clear what you call the core settlement of Carlisle unambiguously, as most people would refer to it as a "city". In my opinion, they are not wrong to do so, even though city status technically applies to the whole district.) -- Dr Greg  talk  13:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
WP:UKGEO is location that springs to my mind, but I think a bit of prep work is needed before any RFC is started.
We can probably ignore ambiguity for the core settlement, using Primary Topic as the get-out clause. Most people looking for Carlisle want the settlement, so leave it there and give a hat-note to the district. However, the district title should be unambiguous - if a reverse hat-note is needed, we have gotten it wrong. And Primary Topic may not work in all cases.
What I do know is it is absurd to call Canterbury and York something other than cities, irrespective of the fact the city status is formally vested in the larger district. I think WP has overemphasised that the formalities of city status in its treatment of these places.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it's a technicality that city status officially attaches to districts (usually), due to the fact that, since 1974, the core settlement, which you'd like to call a "city", doesn't officially exist, i.e. there's no officially-defined boundary to the core settlement, only to the whole district.
Before 1974, it was much simpler: there was a civil parish, or county borough, or urban district to which city status could be attached. Theese entities were abolished in 1974 and in many cases were not replaced by anything with the same or similar boundaries.
We are left, post-1974, with "unparished areas", but these don't have any official identity, they are just what's left over when all the parishes have been excluded. In some cases, there may be two or more adjoining "settlements" (former parishes, county boroughs or urban districts) within a contiguous unparished area, so you can't even use "unparished area" as substitute for "settlement". And in some cases there may be parishes within what you'd call the settlement, or there may be unparished areas that include areas you wouldn't count as part of the settlement. But that's a bit of a digression.
I agree with you that the "settlements" of Canterbury and York (and many more) are indeed cities and that what Wikipedia calls the "City of York" is the local government district named after the city of York settlement. As Wikipedia is supposed to be based on reliable sources, I'd like to see if there are any reliable sources that state that the settlement of York is not a city, or that it is wrong to describe the settlement of York as the "City of York". It seems to me that we are in the unfortunate position that "City of York" is anbiguous and could refer to either the settlement or the district. At least let's call the district the "City of York district". Surely everyone could agree that's a technically correct name and unambiguous. Then the article about the settlement could be called (a) "York" or (b) "City of York". I'd prefer (a) as it's less likely to cause confusion to people who are already familiar with the current convention. And this would apply to all districts where the name of the district could be confused with something else (including all "City of ..." names) -- just append "district" to the article name. (Another possibility could be "York City Council area", but I don't like that as much.) -- Dr Greg  talk  19:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I've taken first steps to address the 3rd issue I initially mentioned - see WP:UKGEO. I think that can be resolved independently of the City/city minefield.
I wish the government did the right thing back in 1974, and set up charter trustees for places like Carlisle, Bradford and Leeds - as it did for Lichfield. But it didn't so we are stuck with things like this being "city" views!--Nilfanion (talk) 09:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - February 2016[edit]

Delivered February 2016 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

23:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Not English?[edit]

Please read the recent edit history of Morwenna Banks. I thought Cornish people were English too, but I have been corrected. She is therefore now being defined as British, not English, per consensus. Rodericksilly (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

A page you started (Ghoti (disambiguation)) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Ghoti (disambiguation), Dr Greg!

Wikipedia editor Damibaru just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Good; however, it would be helpful to the reader to describe why Ghoti is a creative respelling of "fish," and in what language. To many people, this is not obvious at first gland.

To reply, leave a comment on Damibaru's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Of course it's not obvious, that's why there's an article about it. But, in my opinion, it's too complicated to explain on a disambiguation page. Anyone who clicks on the link ghoti will soon find out! -- Dr Greg  talk  02:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Graphic Designer Barnstar Hires.png The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
Thanks for the work you've put in to upgrade the maps of the motorways of the UK. They look much better and will doubtless be appreciated by readers! Rcsprinter123 (push) 00:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - March 2016[edit]

Delivered March 2016 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

02:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect usage of "an"[edit]

Hello Dr Greg. I noticed you reverted my edits over the misuse of "an". Well, I have reverted your edits, but don't worry, I have rectified my errors. You could have at least changed "an" to "a" in my edits, not revert them completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - April 2016[edit]

Delivered April 2016 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

12:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week : nominations needed![edit]

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

Sent on behalf of Buster Seven Talk for the Editor of the Week initiative by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - May 2016[edit]

Delivered May 2016 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

17:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - June 2016[edit]

Delivered June 2016 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

00:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Father Ted[edit]

I don't know if whether you're a template editor, but do you think it's worth putting an edit notice on the edit page explaining how it's a British show? I see the dispute and reversions have been going on for a while, and there's no end in sight. Adam9007 (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

That's certainly an idea well worth considering, but I don't have template editor privilege so I can't implement it myself. To persuade an uninvolved template editor or administrator to do this, we'd need to demonstrate consensus to go ahead with this, so I'd suggest proposing this on the article talk page.-- Dr Greg  talk  16:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I'll launch an RfC. Adam9007 (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Drone photograph[edit]

Hi! I should be interested in your opinion on this photograph. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - July 2016[edit]

Delivered July 2016 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

12:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Carnforth station of the Furness and Midland Joint Railway[edit]

I need some advice from you on this matter, having been informed that particular railway had its own Carnforth station from 1867 to 1880. I have looked on the RDT in the Wikipedia article and cannot trace a specific mention of it and there is no mention also on the line RDT that is incorporated within the article.

Some years ago, your expertise on the closed stations on the Lancaster and Preston Junction Railway made research clarifications of help, so can I ask if you will investigate the matter in hand and if correct, to show the exact position of this closed station on the line RDT.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Template : Banff, Macduff and Turriff Juntion RDT[edit]

I wish to have an amendment editing into this template, which concerns the station of Banff and Macduff, which you will note is the only station shown in red on the RDT. The information is that this was the original terminus, but when the line was extended to Banff station as the new terminus, new running lines were run to the side of the original line, leaving Banff and Macduff station as being shown on a stub line.

The similar example on a line well known to you that can be used as an example of this exact same matter is shown on the template of the Wigan Junction Railways, where the original terminal station of Wigan Darlington Street is shown in a similar stub line position.

I have not the computer skills to make a similar edit concerning Banff and Macduff station and I ask if you can carry out this task on my behalf.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 03:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)