Ey up! I stand by what I said in my edit summary, that this is your best collage yet. I've just given it a bit of a tweak and wanted to explain why.
The Huddersfield photo was good, but cropping it helps emphasise the bridge and barge, which is important at such a small size.
I've done some simple editing of the Hudderfield and Ilkley images to improve the things like the colour and brightness, which just helps them stand out that bit more.
Again, really good job. I'm not setting myself up as some sort of collage expert, but thought you'd appreciate the insight into what I do when I'm compiling mine. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perfectly fine by me to tweak colouring and crop, I am not much of a tweak and re-uploader, only uploads to commons from geograph and the odd search. I love seeing pictures lighten up.
The brilliance tends to be the main thing to me, I just wack it up and nine times out of ten it doesn't need much else.
Honestly, the amount of times I've found almost the perfect image and then realised I'll have to go through the rigmarole of a Commons upload just to tweak it is too high. We're getting there, though! A.D.Hope (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
10 years of ever increasing quality of phone pictures is noticeable. Just have to stop yerself from looking at really good pictures you know you can't upload, that's what I do the only problem is remembering if I've see it in person or see a good picture before then I get annoyed.
Maybe fiddle around to see if they is an easier way to upload photos. On Geograph I copy the description, press licensing, press directly upload this image to Wikimedia Commons, paste description into the summary description field (otherwise is just has the image name), add categories and upload file. You can check it is already uploaded but it doesn't work well and if the file is already there it will wipe the box anyway when you upload.
In any photo's commons article's file history you can press "Upload a new version of this file".
I have in preferences the "timeless" appearance on commons, in desktop mode it is responsive to mobile viewing, shows add categories before you upload and I tend to find it looks and works better than the default. Chocolateediter (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
West Midlands (county) collage
Hi @Chocolateediter. Noticed your change to the infobox collage at West Midlands (county). I don't see how it's appropriate for Droitwich Canal to be the main image when said canal is not in the West Midlands county. The canal runs between Droitwich and Worcester - see Droitwich Canal#Map. Hoping you'll come up with something more representative. Cheers. Rupples (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DoubleGrazing was:
Almost entirely unreferenced – where is all this information coming from?
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Wynyard Village and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, Chocolateediter!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bonjour
How's things? You've backed off a bit from the North Yorkshire and Buckinghamshire discussions, so I'm just seeing how you are A.D.Hope (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A.D.Hope:, I'm back, some more birthdays and got a cold when I came back so some days off doing little bits and back to feeling better. After months of planned stuff I'm in a quiet time where I need to find stuff to do. I've changed the Merseyside pics and suggested some Bucks pics. Chocolateediter (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, that's no fun! Glad you're feeling better now though.
I'm not quite sure about Merseyside, as two of the images are 'beachy' and, although Dream does look a bit odd, it's good in that it represents something cultural and from St Helens. Why not keep the Pier Head, but swap one of the other two for the Lady Lever Gallery or something along those lines? A.D.Hope (talk) 17:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The August 2023 issue of the Project Newsletter is now available.
Delivered August 2023 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.
10:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 4
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lincoln City Centre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lincoln College.
"Towns and cities, characteristics of built-up areas, England and Wales: Census 2021", Section 10: "Data sources and quality", under "Built-up area (BUA) geography".
I've read also read conglomeration somewhere on the site a while back as the new term, it could have been scrapped or not released yet.
just call the wider area conurbation since it is the article explaining the international one. I honestly first read conglomeration and thought agglomeration for a while before conglomeration stuck so I have five terms in my head.
This is exactly why you should have tested the idea at WUKG first. As I read it, BUAs do not replace BUASDs. BUAs wil continue to exist as they were for settlements that aren't big enough to have useful subdivisions. The large BUAs are renamed as conglomerations (perish the thought that they could use the established term agglomeration!) but they don't say what nomenclature they plan to use.
So I think you have jumped the gun and that you should self-revert and wait for the full announcement. And invite comment at WUKG first. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The main change is that the geography has been simplified into a single layer, providing one boundary and a single set of statistics for each settlement.
Changes and updates to the geography boundaries since 2011 mean that statistics from 2021 BUAs cannot be directly compared with those from 2011. The single layer used in the new geography most closely resembles the 2011 BUA subdivision layer."
I took this to mean the first later link was confirmation of conglomeration mentioned in the second earlier link as the new term for the top layer was scrapped at some point and that BUA is the only layer they use now. I had to dig around for the 2nd older link but had the newer link at hand the order I sent them may have gave off the other way round.
All the articles on 2011-BUAs and the list are now in need of using a new metric for population with 2021 census not catering to them. A new excuse for the articles exist is needed, I guess Tyneside might be one that could stay with the Geordie identity backing it up but each needs to be decided on whether they merge into the corresponding counties or place articles.
My brain sees components of words. Think about the times I've tried searching for agglomeration to pull up the first link to no avail, probably separate con so that I don't get confused with conurbation . Conurbation itself to me reads to me as con-urban-tion (connected the places are) which means I keep miss-spelling it by adding an "n" every once and a while.
The spur of the moment move should help me think of consulting first, what is done is done I hope I'll be wiser if another ever crosses my mind again. Chocolateediter (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For now, I advise you revert the change (I think you will need help from an administrator so use {{help me}}).
Then start a new topic at the WikiProject because I really think it is going to be a total dog's breakfast. I can see Manchester as a conurbation but Northampton? (Just because in 2011 the ONS decided to delineate two BUASDs, one also called Northampton, how stupid is that? They did even worse at MK, actually splitting the 1967 New Town designated area in two and calling one fragment MK!!) I suspect (hope!) they got a good kicking. I suggest that we really need to combine a lot of personal horror stories to find a formula that works, it really is too complicated for one person to solve. Which perhaps is the reason why the ONS haven't solved it yet either! 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't be sure if you've seen what I wrote at Talk:Merseyside, but I suspect you probably have. I just wanted to make it very clear that I was talking about a few specific edits, not you as an editor. They were a bit of an irritation, but irritation is a minor feeling which passes. Not a big deal. Plus I know I have my own habits which are equally annoying! What I wrote looks harsh and I apologise for that, but it doesn't reflect my actual emotions. In my experience things always look worse in writing than they'd sound if you spoke them, so please don't think I dislike you.
Well, you would have done at some point and the last thing I want is any sort of rift.
I think that Bucks looks great, have you done some work on the images? Also, I know you're only saying it lightly, but it's not my place to give the 'all clear' to your edits. We're collaborators working toward a consensus. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your view and I like your similar view on pictures to me, if we don't agree it seems that we both find a good resolution quite fast anyway.
All clear was the phrase that came to me, your one of the collaborators who was working on the consensus with me and I had you here so seemed convenient to get your view.
Exactly, we are pretty good at resolving things! The collages are quite fun to do, I must admit, glad you're also enjoying them A.D.Hope (talk) 09:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
List of Catholic churches in the United Kingdom
While taking an interest in the List of Catholic churches in the United Kingdom can be helpful, such an overhaul of the sorting of the article after mentioning it in the talk page would have been better. While you took hours yesterday getting it done, the very changes that you did were raised before, and disagreed with. A mention in the talk page before that work would have been best. Cardofk (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The September 2023 issue of the Project Newsletter is now available.
Delivered September 2023 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.
Which parts need more refs, they is some dotted around the draft do they need to be referred back to a bit more. I think I've done enough to match other city centre articles.
Any local knowledge I can look up and add with refs to help fill any gaps. I am from near Middlesbrough so I've some knowledge from a lot of day trips and looking up but not a lot beyond that. Chocolateediter (talk) 12:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, a few sections have zero references such as North West, South east, Places of worship, and Transport. It looks like its WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH if you just state the locations of various buildings/neighbourhoods/places. It's a tricky one to get right. Qcne(talk)12:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The October 2023 issue of the Project Newsletter is now available.
Delivered October 2023 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.
'I did the historic County Durham map overlay recently and that took more time on commons than I've ever done before'
Then surely you would have noticed the 'Portrack Cut', why did you not mention this cut in the 'Stockton' racecourse article? You do know that there has never been a racecourse in Stockton?. As for the nonsense you've made-up about Thornaby, do you actually know anything about the town? I was born and bred in the town and have researched it's history for many, many years. Where are your citations? Or are you deliberately going out of your way to undermine the town? 86.22.156.129 (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User: 86.4.91.211 did
"
". Although named "Stockton Racecourse" there was never a racecourse actually located within Stockton-on-Tees but, across the River Tees in the North Riding of Yorkshire".
"
In 2013
It confused me, surely you should have noticed the Mandale Cut is one you are on about NOT the Portrack Cut so get off your high horse for summit I did 4 years ago rather than getting your own facts straight and putting the correct information yerself. Chocolateediter (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for October 9
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Black Jack (confectionery), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trebor.
I agree, your move wasn't so terrible that it needed to be shot down first, ask questions later. Which is why I didn't. WP:AGF.
Your logic is not sound though.
There has been no discussion (especially no recent discussion) about the title of the page that expressed any objection to a new title, but equally There has been no discussion ... that expressed any need for a change of title. Yes, you can WP:BEBOLD for blatantly obvious moves but this one was not such.
It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move. Greater Manchester would disagree, its the only thing that makes them Second City. "Greater Birmingham" (including Wolverhampton, Dudley and Walsall) would probably trump them.
In my experience, if in doubt, consult first. That way you are more likely to achieve the result you wanted or at least have had a fair hearing. Otherwise people feel they are being railroaded and just dig their heels in. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bold is bold, editors should respect it more otherwise we'd get nowhere. I thank you for doing that, shame it wasn't just you who noticed the edit so fast.
Greater just means referring to a region or place together with the surrounding area pertaining to it; (of a city) metropolitan.
Shire and greater can be almost synonymous but so can conurbation (con = with, urb = city, tion = acting).
Ultimately the area with Birmingham is the Black Country which decides to co-operate with Birmingham but has its own identity which is understandable as it practically equals Birmingham. Manchester doesn't have the same situation as the other places squabble to be separate identities thierselves.
Greater Manchester BUA would instantly have the Greater Manchester article space if the county didn't exist. I wish the Victorian -polis would come back into use I would very much like Ironopolis, Cottonopolis and so on over Tees Valley and Greater Manchester.
I like
Conurbation for one place with small places that don't equal or aren't bigger than the largest
Metropolis for multiple places that can equal or be bigger than the largest.
That logic is reasonable except that you bump up against precedent. I hit the same problem when I wanted to refer to 'districts of Milton Keynes' – "Oh no, you can't do that, MK was a District of Buckinghamshire, the word 'district' is bagsed" (or words to that effect). Well that is a bit of an extreme case but the phrase "Greater Abcde" has a meaning in UK law, as does "metropolitan" and "non-metropolitan", so we can't appropriate them for another use because they are already loaded terms. I really think that the ONS has made an even bigger rod for their own backs: BUAs and BUSAs aren't great terms but places like Northampton being called a conurbation? Seriously?? And we couldn't possibly have agglomeration, far too French! But the fundamental point is that you are on a hiding to nothing when you try to assert your own terminology. We really have no choice but to wait for the ONS to reveal the answer.
If it is of any consolation, there is a lot of it about:
Defining a city or large town is not as straightforward as it may sound. And it’s something that there are any different opinions about – Centre for Cities gets more correspondence on this issue than anything else that we do.
You just have to accept that anything in this area is a hot button for someone so it is wisest to test the water first. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The November 2023 issue of the Project Newsletter is now available.
Delivered November 2023 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.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DoubleGrazing was:
The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at York. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.
The comment the reviewer left was:
I concur with the earlier commentators, that we really don't need a separate article on the city centre; just merge selectively into the York and/or City of York articles.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:York City Centre and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Greetings - I noted you likely are much more of a stakeholder in the Blackpool article - I did make many bold and rabidly strident changes - and I documented them as such in the audit trail of the edits - I do apologize - all edits made in good faith.
Sadly, the reversion by @DragonofBatley deleted other more conservative edits - the sizing of the images is the most notably visual loss of quality by these wholesale resets.
As with most matters there is always a civil middle ground and sure - I have no interest in edit wars and I was crystal clear that I did think my edits - pushed the 'consensus boundaries' - but no one reacted negatively - until this day. There are sections in the article's talk section and there was arguably some degree of consensus.
I usually only focus on medical and science articles and there is less room for bombast and group think in such articles -
I did actually think the changes others made - size of images - should be reverted - but I am not getting directly involved.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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.
The December 2023 issue of the Project Newsletter is now available.
Delivered December 2023 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.
Hello, Chocolateediter. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Wynyard Village, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
The January 2024 issue of the Project Newsletter is now available.
Delivered January 2024 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.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
The February 2024 issue of the Project Newsletter is now available.
Delivered February 2024 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.
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Seaton Carew, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
The March 2024 issue of the Project Newsletter is now available.
Delivered March 2024 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.
Northallerton has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog FarmTalk02:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Chocolateediter. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:York City Centre, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Hello there! Interested in having a chat with fellow Wikipedians? There's a meetup in Leeds on Saturday 4th May 2024, at the Tiled Hall Café at Leeds Central Library.
You're receiving this one-off message as you're either a member of WikiProject Yorkshire, you've expressed an interest in a previous Leeds meetup years ago, or (for about 4 of you), we've met :)
I plan to organise more in future, so if you'd like to be notified next time, please say so over on the meetup page.
Please also invite any Wikimedia people you know (or have had wiki dealings with) – spread the word! Hope to see you there.
The April 2024 issue of the Project Newsletter is now available.
Delivered Apri 2024 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.
12:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
3RR violation
You have just done your third reversion. I am about to do the same. From now on, we are required to resolve this at the article talk page. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Racecourses map
Hi, thanks for adding the maps to show all the British racecourses - would you be able to add Kempton Park to the south-east Britain map? Bcp67 (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you haven't already seen talk:Bedford#Populations used in lead and infobox, it may help explain my "interesting". There must be hundreds of such disputes around the country that are totally non-obvious to anybody who doesn't live nearby or travels through it regularly. The stretch from Upton to Hordle via Poole, Bournemouth, Southbourne, Christchurch, Highcliffe and New Milton is the stuff on nightmares aka WP:OR). I think you would be making a rod for your own back. There is a reason why the ONS is struggling to get the agglomeration definitions out and why they are trying to dump it on the ONS. It's difficult! --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The May 2024 issue of the Project Newsletter is now available.
Delivered May 2024 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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ONS built-up areas in England by population until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
FYI, the AFD process invites nominators to consider alternatives to outright deletion, such as park in draft space. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
The June 2024 issue of the Project Newsletter is now available.
Delivered June 2024 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.
The July 2024 issue of the Project Newsletter is now available.
Delivered July 2024 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.
The August 2024 issue of the Project Newsletter is now available.
Delivered August 2024 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.
The September 2024 issue of the Project Newsletter is now available.
Delivered September 2024 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.
21:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marston's Brewery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carlsburg.
The October 2024 issue of the Project Newsletter is now available.
Delivered October 2024 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.
11:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Controversial page moves
Please read Wikipedia:Moving a page. You must not do any page moves that you have any reason to believe might be controversial. You must propose it at the article talk page and await consensus. (If no-one replies within a week, you may assume that is ok.) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All businesses wouldn't exist if somebody didn't choose to be contrary to the verse of the time, wikipedia being the epitome of going against everybody sifting through long dusty tomes to get an answer to something simple.
Nobody agreed upon your overly long name:
Stortford suggested
"'List of built-up areas in England by population' or the like. "
I suggested
'List of 2021 built-up areas in England'
You moved it and I was tied to just keeping the article that I couldn't argue. Your name wasn't by consensus.
I think Wikipedia:Article titles#Considering changes is where we both look to. Last bit of the 1st paragraph for you, the first bit of the paragraph for me. My bad on my part admittedly moving a controversial move and if you fight your overly long title through consensus and lose, it defaults back to the original title.
Surely three letters and a space isn't going to end the world, even though you are hell-bent on it ending if the original title is reinstated. You must propose it at the article talk page and await consensus. (If no-one replies within half a year, you may assume that is ok.) Chocolateediter (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The principle stated at Wikipedia:Moving a page is clear: don't use the accelerated procedure on anything remotely controversial. Whether or not the proposal has merit should be discussed at the article talk page, not here. My motivation, let alone your interpretation of it, is irrelevant. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the top of WP:MOVE
"This help page is a how-to guide.
It explains concepts or processes used by the Wikipedia community. It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, and may reflect varying levels of consensus." Different interpretation text can bring a very different clarity even by the same person over multiple readings. Did the move to "List of ONS built-up areas in England by population" go through accelerated procedure when at the time it was controversial. The move 5 months ago wasn't discussed as to its merit. My motivation, let alone your interpretation of it, is irrelevant when you assumed I had the motivation of leaving it like you did if nobody replies within 5 months that it was ok.
"List them at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests if it appears unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move"
Of which you didn’t do when you moved it 5 months ago. We find it hard to find common grounds, its easier to do it myself get your backlash then bounce it back to you. At least my move was a smaller change.
"For other cases, follow the instructions for controversial and potentially controversial moves:
If you believe the move might be controversial
If you are unsure about the best page name, despite reading Wikipedia:Article naming guidelines"
You’re a stickler for the guidelines when it’s others but not when you don’t follow them. Whether your move should have merit should be discussed not chucked in the middle of a discussion about Milton Keynes’s population in the talk then pushed directly to a deletion discussion straight after sandwiching it in.
In my opinion having ONS in it makes it just that bit overlong, the article currently doesn’t even only supply ONS data but also citypopulation.de data. The naming is also a wider issue with consistent name and structure for English, Welsh, Irish and Scottish equivalent articles.
———————
Right lets call it equals and be proactive.
Why don’t we start the preliminary move discussion on the article talk page, send some users to it to get a wider view. Can you do the technical stuff we get down to the final move discussion. I'll research stuff. It might be best to co-ordinate a group of articles. Chocolateediter (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The November 2024 issue of the Project Newsletter is now available.
Delivered November 2024 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.
18:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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.
The December 2024 issue of the Project Newsletter is now available.
Delivered December 2024 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.
