This is an archive of past discussions with User:Dr Greg. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Good to see you are making appropriate derivatives from my blank maps. However, I do have a concern with some of your derivatives with regards to the boundaries: The convention deliberately is not for black but the grey #646464, even when the line is a thick national border line. Black boundaries are very prominent and have a tendency to dominate images as a result, especially as the overall colour scheme is relatively subdued.
This is a particular problem on File:English regions and counties by type 2009.svg - the regional boundaries overwhelm everything else on that image as a thumbnail as they are both very thick and black. Given that, plus the facts that the regions don't actually have that much significance, and its being used in a section about the counties/districts, that image in particular would benefit from a tweak to reduce the prominence of those borders (which should be somewhere between county and country borders).--Nilfanion (talk) 09:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion. After thinking about this for a while, I concede I got this wrong. I wanted to ensure there was a clear distinction between different types of boundaries, but I went too far. I've already uploaded a new version of the particular file you mentioned above, which was by far the worst offender. I may re-examine my other uploads, but with less urgency.
As for conservation area maps, I pretty much agree with everything said on the talk page, so don't really have anything to add at the moment. I've seen some of your National Park maps, both your "location maps" and "relief maps", so something similar (in both styles) for AONBs such as the Forest of Bowland would work nicely I think. -- Dr Greg talk 14:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, getting that balance right is a pain-in-the-neck. There's a reason why I haven't created the labelled versions of maps (and left it to others like you), as its just another layer of complexity.
As for the conservation areas I'm slowly working that up, figuring out all the complexities as I do. I'm more or less at point I can start producing them now I think. Biggest thing might be just to get that bit more confidence and be happy that what I make is "about right" :)--Nilfanion (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
First day of the week redirects to Names of the days of the week where there's a discussion of who, what, when and how. I'm in Thailand where the modern Thai solar calendar is their version of the Gregorian calendar, and a week is defined as a 7-day period beginning on Sunday and ending Saturday by the Royal Thai Institute, though that doesn't stop some Thai calendar makers from starting their weeks with Mondays. I'm too preoccupied to add that to the first article named. --Pawyilee (talk) 05:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
My only concern was the claim that the Gregorian calendarproscribes prescribes (retrospectively corrected) that Sunday is the first day of the week. I haven't seen any evidence for this; the decision on which is the first day of the week seems to be a separate decision regardless of whether you use the Gregorian calendar or not.-- Dr Greg talk 12:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, no, as proscribes means forbids, but neither does it prescribed. How about inserting working this into the text where you made the changes: Numbered days of the week. The hatnote preserves the information that it is a redirect from First day of the week. --Pawyilee (talk) 12:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Whoops, you are right, I meant "prescribes". Note that all I did was undo another editor's changes to a version that made no mention of the Gregorian calendar.-- Dr Greg talk 13:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean by "if this is true," and "please provide a source"? Where have you lived all these years where they might not have been printing calendars with Sunday up front? Is that not source enough? And if not, then why not? And why should that dumb ISO trump ages-old history?
Okay, well even if it's not Gregorian specifically (I said "Gregorian" because it's the calendar that I was taught that we currently use in places where we don't also use the lunar calendar or some other weird type--and it's the one on which we always see Sunday first), at least there's a lot more history to that than there is to some dumb ISO!
The only thing I have been questioning -- and asking for a source -- is the specific claim that the Gregorian calendar dictates which is the first day of the week. I've seen no evidence for that, and as far as I understand it, calendars that put Monday first are still using the Gregorian calendar. By the way, I live in a country where most printed calendars do put Sunday first; it seems to be only Americans that put Monday first in my experience. -- Dr Greg talk 14:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
While Thai names of the days of the week were not in Names_of_the_days_of_the_week#Days_numbered_from_Sunday, they were on the page after all, as part of the table labeled Indian Astrology. Someone looking for Javanese names overlooked the entry there, too. I deleted the Java entry, and added to the first line: "Sunday comes first in order in calendars based on Indian astrology, as shown in the above table." Could you word it better? --Pawyilee (talk) 12:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
LOOK WHY DID U ERASE THE PAGE I NEEDED IT TO DO A PROJECT ABOUT THAT PAGE AND I DON'T NOW WHY U DID IT AND DO THE PAGE AGAIN SO THAT I GET A EXCELLENT WORK OK M.A — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.77.16 (talk) 01:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I am currently collecting material to do a page on the Keighley-Kendal Turnpike 1753-1877. Have you seen any references on it in links or in books that you can send me? Thak you : Kildwyke Kildwyke (talk) 17:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
No books I have consulted mention the Greater Manchester Coalfield, the literature I have consulted uses the term Lancashire. The disasters happened before the metropolitan county existed. Please don't use this confusing term.J3Mrs (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Hey Dr. Greg -
I noticed you edited my recent little contribution on the "Steak and kidney pudding" page, changing it to "published" instead of "authored" (by Mrs. Isabella Beeton). But after reviewing the source (again), I am left only with the fact that the recipe was "published" in London by Ward, Lock and Tyler in 1870. Further, it doesn't say from whom or from where Mrs. Beeton obtained this particular recipe, so there is no apparent reason not to give her the authorship credit. Technically speaking, it wasn't self-published. Also, I am curious: why did you delete her first name (Isabella) and the period after "Mrs" (as opposed to "Mrs.")? Isn't it more informative to include her first name, as it had not been previously referenced in the article? Is it not also customary to put a period thus? Forgive me if my etiquette in addressing this concern is incorrect, as I am only an amateur editor of this website and not an experienced contributor such as yourself. Greetings from sunny Los Angeles, California!
Wjosephsimmons (talk) 00:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't feel too strongly about any of this.
OK, maybe "published" is the wrong word, but "authored" suggests it's her own recipe, and the book indicates it was submitted to her by someone else. Maybe there's a better word. Perhaps we could say "...in a book by..." instead?
The name "Mrs Beeton" is well known; I suspect hardly anyone has heard of "Isabella Beeton" and would be baffled by the name. If they follow the link they'll soon find out her full name.
In the UK nowadays it's commonplace (but not universal) to write "Mrs" instead of "Mrs."; I think fashions are different in the US.
(talk page stalker)Mrs (without period) is correct. In British English, periods are only appended to abbreviations where the last letter of the abbreviation differs from the last letter of the word abbreviated. Since Mrs Beeton was British, MOS:TIES applies and there is no period.
Regarding the other matters: Beeton is definitely not the publisher, which as noted above is Ward, Lock and Tyler. If Beeton is not the sole author, it's pretty certain that she did compile it; so should perhaps be credited as the editor - use |editor-last=Beeton|editor-first=Isabella for this. To cover the potential problem of people not recognising the form of "Beeton, Isabella", we have parameters to link the name: use either |authorlink=Isabella Beeton or |editor-link=Isabella Beeton as appropriate. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Preston City Centre Map
Hi Dr. Greg, thanks for your terrific input on all things Preston. I've noticed that there are location maps for a lot of English cities, but not Preston. Do you know where it is possible to find a map of Preston City Centre, something like the city centre map of Edinburgh, but of Preston? What is the process for taking a map and converting it into a location map for Wikipedia? Cheers Pjposullivan (talk) 13:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the question. I'll think of possible answers over the next few days. I guess we'll need to think of an appropriate area to cover and that may require a check for the locations of existing articles. -- Dr Greg talk 01:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Dr. Greg, thanks for the corrections to Template: Jesuits in Britain, the template's a lot better now. I was thinking about making a separate template instead for former/closed Jesuit schools, as there are so many. They range from Preston Catholic College, to ones in Bournemouth, Leeds and Sunderland, what do you think? Should we still have the section in the current template or make a name one? Pjposullivan (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Also, sorry, just thought of this, there are even more former Jesuit churches than schools, maybe a template for all former Jesuit institutions would be more useful. Once one person adds former Jesuit churches to the current template, then it will end up becoming very large. Pjposullivan (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, on reflection, I guess it would make more sense to put former schools, churches etc in a different template. I've removed the section I added so as not to attract further additions from other editors. Go ahead with your plan when you are ready. -- Dr Greg talk 00:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I have started a discussion on the talk page for this church about renaming (moving) it. You advice on this would be greatly appreciated. Prestonmag (talk) 09:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry if this isn't relevant, but I recently made a contribution to chippings page about the ghost of lizzie dean, as a new contributor I'm worried the contents will be perceived as vandalism. Thought I'd inform you as you seem a keen editor of all things Lancashire just in case you could help the comments be verified.
Thank you for reverting my erroneous edit however I find your immediate description of the edit as "vandalism" somewhat disconcerting! If you look at the history of the page you will see that the format the previous user had utilised for the subheading "history" had indeed created a poorly constructed table of contents and rather than attempt to tinker with the format of the source I elected to simply revert that user's edits by editing a previous version. Naturally I hadn't noticed that the previous version I reverted to contained items of vandalism and I strongly suggest that you think twice before branding someone a vandal when mistake is the more likely cause of the problem! I found your comments exceptionally harsh and very premature, you hadn't even offered the courtesy of contacting me to advise me that I had inadvertently caused vandalism to be restored in an article before you accused me of using misleading edit summaries and vandalism! -2.96.139.206 (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Hitchhiker's reversion
Hi, thanks for looking at my recent change to the The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radio series) page. There's still something up with the sentence as it stands, and I thought it better to chat about it before charging on!
Sentence as is: 'In a 2005 interview with Simon Jones the use of this song was mentioned as a major cause for the delay in releasing recordings of the new series in the United States.'
Either it needs a comma after 'Simon Jones,' or it needs a main verb putting 'mentioned' as an auxiliary verb stating that, of the reasons for the delay in releasing recordings, the use of this song was mentioned as a major cause. Sadly the Simon Jones reference is locked behind the paywalled cite site libsyn, so I can't get a sense of how it is mentioned; the Dirk Maggs production diary entry does focus on that issue, but it is just seen as a complication.
It maybe that 'In a 2005 interview with Simon Jones, the use of this song was mentioned as a major cause for the delay in releasing recordings of the new series in the United States.' is the simplest solution to a readable sentence; though I confess I prefer 'In a 2005 interview with Simon Jones revealed that the use of this song was mentioned as a major cause for the delay in releasing recordings of the new series in the United States.' makes for a better read overall.
Your second version still doesn't make grammatical sense and would need to be modified to read:
'In a 2005 interview, Simon Jones revealed that the use of this song was a major cause for the delay in releasing recordings of the new series in the United States.'
But that presumes the information came from Simon Jones, not someone else taking part, and the use of "revealed" implies this was previously a secret, which might not be true. So I still think the original version, but with a comma added as you suggest, would be the simpler option. -- Dr Greg talk 20:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I see that you've reverted my edit. That's all right. I was planning on writing the whole article in one go, but I've decided that I don't have enough energy at this time of night. It's saved in my sandbox. I want to include a list of all the phonemes and the main grammatical features. I hope to have it ready within a week. I've been thinking of adding some of Shorrocks's material for a while, but I've decided that it's best to go in a separate article as other parts of Lancashire speak very differently from Bolton.
"Piping" is when you supply alternative words to appear as a link instead of the name of the article, so-called because of the "pipe" character "|" (Wikipedia:Piped link). In this case I felt it wasn't appropriate to link the name of a book to an article not explicitly about the book itself. Assuming you do create the article, I'm sure there'll be a better way to link to it. -- Dr Greg talk 22:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for adding a picture to Llanelidan. I was wondering if you'd be interested in creating a page for Nantclwyd Hall, a Grade II listed property in Llanelidan, owned by the Naylor-Leyland baronets. I am quite busy and I don't think I'd have time for more than a stub; it would be great if you could help. Let me know on my talkpage. Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
January 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Frank Aked, Sr. may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
the then [[Australian Football League|Victorian Football League]] in 1925. He was recruited from [[[Northern Bullants|Preston]] ([[Victorian Football Association|VFA]]) as a ruckman and played
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bobbie Comber, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bangor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Please explain why you keep removing information I post about the station and links to more info about the station and the sidings around the said station. If you wish to email me please do so using jed_mac@hotmail.com
It's part of Wikipedia's manual of style to use as few capital letters as possible. There is a long-standing convention that railway station articles are named "X railway station", not "X Railway Station". The logic is that it is about a railway station called "X" rather than an entity called "X Railway Station". If you disagree with this policy, you can't just make Heapey the exception to the rule, you'd have to persuade other editors that the rule for all stations needs to be changed. The policy is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations) and the place to discuss it is Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (UK stations).
As far as external links are concerned, there is already a link to that website in the article; I see no need for a second link. The second link would be more appropriate for the Lancashire Union Railway article. However, as you have declared a conflict of interest on your talk page, it would be preferable not to link to your own site, but to suggest the link on the article's talk page and let other editors decide if the link is appropriate. See WP:ADV. -- Dr Greg talk 13:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Lancashire
Hi,
I'm just trying to figure out my first edit warring post for the IPs, not because I care, but it seems to be someone using a proxy who already got in trouble today. --Trappedinburnley (talk)
Hopefully they've got bored now, to be honest I've got better things to do than figure out the edit warring noticeboard right now. I'm going to leave it for the time being (greater wiki issues or not). --Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
IPA
Should I bother leaning more about it? My approach to the Clitheroe argument has differed somewhat from yours. This is because, at the moment it seems that including the IPA transcription in an article is about as useful as expressing the word in binary. I started reading the help stuff but stopped when I thought "what use is this ever going to be to me?". And this is from someone who has spent time learning some Old English.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
If the IPA is added via the {{IPAc-en}} template, then you can move your mouse over each symbol and get some help how to pronounce it. If that's not clear enough, you can click through to the help page for more examples. After you've done this a few times you start to remember what some of the symbols mean. The bad thing about the IPAc-en template is that some of the examples are ambiguous -- people with different accents may pronounce things differently. Not everyone pronounces "about" as "uh-bout" (/əˈbaʊt/); some, especially in Lancashire, may pronounce it with an "a" sound (/æˈbaʊt/), hence the confusion over Clitheroe. The good thing about IPA, if it's working properly, is that it ought, in theory, to be meaningful for anyone around the world, no matter what their language or accent.
Having said all that, there's no need to add pronunciation to an article unless it's not pronounced the way you'd expect. "Clitheroe" seems to me to be unexceptional; it's pronounced as spelt. Unlike, say, "Oswaldtwistle". -- Dr Greg talk 21:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Anglesey and Aled Jones
I noticed that you reverted the addition of Aled Jones as having been born on Anglesey. I noted, as you noted, his appearance elsewhere in the article. However my interest in this is that for very many years there was no maternity unit on Anglesey and home births were strongly resisted by the medical establishment. As a result all children of Anglesey parents were born in St David's hospital, Bangor or, more recently, Yspty Gwynedd in Bangor. I think that this definition of "born in" is rather too narrow and I would have thought that a child born to parents living on Anglesey could rightly have been thought to have been "born on Anglesey". I would welcome your views on the general principle. VelellaVelella Talk 21:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. As the article has two separate lists for "born in Anglesey" and "lived in Anglesey" it seems to me you have to take that literally, or else merge the two lists into one. If you feel strongly about this, I suggest your raise it at Talk:Anglesey to see what other people think. -- Dr Greg talk 21:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
According to this wrong map, the Irish Sea seems to have a mean depth of much more than 52 metres.--Ulamm (talk) 07:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
As a general rule, if you find something on Wikipedia that is incorrect, you should not add "this is incorrect", or equivalent, after the wrong information. The best option is to replace the incorrect information with correct information, with a source to prove it is correct. If you can't do that, you have two other options: you could delete the information (without replacement) provided you explain why clearly in your edit summary or on the article talk page; or you could do nothing in the article and raise a question on the article talk page.
Having said all that, I've compared the map in the article with the map in your reference. The article map displays numbers but no units: I suspect they are in feet rather than metres, so they are not so wildly different as it would first seem. Nevertheless, even after taking that into account there are still significant differences between the two, so the disputed map doesn't seem to be too reliable. -- Dr Greg talk 19:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
In the North Canal, related to other maps, the depths are given in metres.
According to other maps, west of the Islands of Man and Anglesey the water is significantly deeper than east of them. In this special map, east of them there are more deep areas then west of them.
In other maps, Cardigan Bay east of the direct line between Braich y Pwll and Strumble Head is shallow. In the map of the ports, this line passes a deep bassin, and near to the coast there is another deep channel.--Ulamm (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Dr Greg. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
