User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2007/August

Urmston

Now that the Altrincham page is up to scratch, I'll turn my attentions towards Urmston. There's already a pretty good framework. I'll get started on the demographics section; it's just number crunching, but it needs to be done. Nev1 16:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Barring the final 2 sections of the article, I think that the Urmston article is ready to be put forward as a GAC. The only significant thing left to do is to remove the unsourced people from the 'notable people' section. I'm not entirely sure what the 'cultral references' section is adding to the article though. It also would be nice to have some pictures, but I don't think that should hold the article back. Nev1 17:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but a lot of work had already been done on the article. The 'cultral references' section may be inline with WP:UKCITIES but my objection is that does a passing (and surreal) comment about toilets matter and is it something people want to know about; my objections are rather vague, so I am content to ignore them. As for pictures that may be a bit problematic as I don't have a camera, although the suggestion of a picture of All Saints Church is a good idea. I'm afraid that I don't know of any landmarks as such partly because I don't live in Urmston. Nev1 13:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Shaw and Crompton

I really must thank you for your continued efforts to aid in the promotion of Shaw and Crompton to FA standard. I really really appreciate it. Do please keep my in the loop of any projects you're working on, as I'd be more than happy to return the favour! Jza84 20:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'll inevitably be taking you up on your offer some time in the not too distant future. In the meantime I just felt that I could perhaps help in dealing with what seem to be the interminable "Oppose, 1a)" objections to too many otherwise excellent articles. The verifiable facts can be difficult to establish, but the prose can be easily fixed. If my efforts help Shaw and Crompton gets through its FA review, that will be thanks enough. :) --Malleus Fatuarum 21:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Question

Do you have any opinions about Rugby, Warwickshire? I've tried to apply WP:UKCITIES, but a "regular" editor of the article believes we should use "organic" (Quote) structures and reverted it.... It's not a revert war, but as you were involved in the construction of the guidelines, and have experience in bringing articles upto scratch I wondered what you made of this. Jza84 23:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I do have an opinion, and I've given it on that article's talk page. :) --Malleus Fatuarum 00:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input on Rugby. I sincerely believe that though WP:UKCITIES appears rigid, it has the strength in it's suggestions to allow for flexibility for a hamlet in Orkney, to a city in Wales, to a civil parish in England. I also think it's a highly logical approach to writing about settlements, and a very positive step forwards.... but who am I to say eh?...

With regards to the convert template, I think that's an excellent step forwards too! I spotted that discrepency last week and wondered about words/numbers. It seems like a good change to have made, though of course there is "always one", as they say. Jza84 00:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I've left some comments at Trafford Park. It never fails to amaze me how people are complacent with substandard articles and will revert out maintainence tags to protect them before going to the library and contributing to the article itself. Hope all is well... and, of course, thank you ever so much for aiding in bringing Shaw and Crompton to FA standard! With some luck we can do it again with a little more teamwork! Jza84 00:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. As you suggest, teamwork is what it's got to be about, and I'm more than happy to help wherever I can. I was likely almost as pleased as you were to see Shaw and Crompton get FA. There are probably very few of us, if any of us, who could write an FA article—or even a GA article—entirely on our own. And of course the trauma of taking part in both GA and FA reviews simultaneously was a great learning curve for me, even if not one that was entirely welcome at the time. --Malleus Fatuarum 01:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me get back to you about the Trafford Park map. I think I could do it, though have a huge backlog of maps to produce (around 25) for the UK place infobox. Jza84 16:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Funny how I keep coming across people wanting to do the same as me ... I have my eyes out for a copy of this map, which should do the job nicely. I think I've spotted one on the wall of a pub, but someone else was sat under it. It should be out of copyright. Mr Stephen 16:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's got to be a good sign if other people keep wanting to do the same thing that you do. :) That looks like a good map. I had something a bit simpler, more diagrammatic, in mind, showing just the major roads, canals, railways and places mentioned in the article. --Malleus Fatuarum 17:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyeditor's Barnstar

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		In appreciation of all the work you put in sorting out my poor prose on the Chew Stoke article. — Rod talk 19:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

If you fancied taking a look at Buildings and architecture of Bristol while I'm away over the next few weeks that would be great as i hope to put it up for FAC when I get back.— Rod ^talk 19:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I already saw your userpage comment about my barnstar I'm afraid :) Epbr123 19:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

No need to be afraid, I meant every word of it. --Malleus Fatuarum 19:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I am sorry if my reminiscences, are not considered historicaly noteworthy. I douby whethewr anybody know's Old Trafford 1950-1966 better than me. So iof you want to know anything, just ask me.

Your knowledge of old Trafford has not been questioned, but I would suggest that the proper place for your reminiscences is in your memoirs, not an encyclopedia. A list of cinemas, without any explanation as to why any of them are notable, all of them long since demolished anyway, doesn't seem the sort of thing likely to be of interest to the reader of an encyclopedia article about Old Trafford. --Malleus Fatuarum 12:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

you're welcome

You're welcome re: ITIL v3. Seems I have to keep playing this role. Charles T. Betz 23:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm disturbed flybd5 is charging you with vandalism. I will back you if any moderators enquire. Charles T. Betz 02:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I didn't know that he had charged me with vandalism. --Malleus Fatuarum 14:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Salford Quays page

Just wanted to send a quick 'thank you!' for tidying up after me in the Salford Quays pages. :o)

I do my best, but have little experience in the Wikipedia world, so it's nice to know there's someone watching and keeping things straight!

Roobarb! 15:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that's a better layout for the residential bit... But were you calling me an estate agent in the comments? I could take offense at that! ;o) Roobarb! 22:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - it was starting to go overboard on the detail, but it's not easy to spot while I'm writing it... Might move on to some of the landmarks / attractions when I next get chance. A little more detail might be more useful on those... ;o) Roobarb! 23:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering about the move of the IWMN detail from the Salford Quays to the Trafford Park pages... Should there not be IWMN content on the Quays pages? I feel that there should, as although I agree that the museum is certainly in Trafford Park, it describes and publicises itself as a Quays landmark. I think it would be an odd omission from the Salford Quays pages if it were not mentioned at all. :o/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roobarb! (talk • contribs) 21:06, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind - I'm going to copy this over the page discussion. Should make it easier to follow for me! :o) Roobarb! 21:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)