User talk:Dave.Dunford/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Fisher comma

Hello Dave- Wikipedia's crowd-sourced MOS notwithstanding, I removed that extraneous comma again. No interest in a punctuation war, but I would suggest you look this up somewhere besides our manual of style. The only anglophones I know of who would pause at that point in a sentence would be certain younger people from California, or those under their influence (see tangentially related info at Valspeak). A good rule of thumb in these cases is "no pause, no comma". If you change it again, I'm not going to revert you, but I wanted to let you know where I was coming from. Regards from your somewhat incorrigible copyeditor on the other side of the briny, Eric ^talk 17:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Eric. I'm afraid that – speaking as a professional editor, albeit a British one – you're wrong. The comma isn't extraneous. Firstly, MOS isn't the only place this usage is specified − every source I can find requires one (e.g. [1], [2], [3] [4]; I don't have access to them but apparently the AP style guide and the Chicago Manual of Style say the same). Secondly, commas aren't only about pauses: in this construction, the state name is a parenthesis, so it needs two commas regardless of how you would read it. It's a bit pedantic, perhaps, but to my eyes your preferred usage is akin to opening a bracket and not closing it again. And, besides, if we're going to ignore the MOS, what's the point in having it? Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Some pretty reliable sources are cited as firmly in favour of the double comma at http://ask.metafilter.com/239830/When-did-become-OK-to-drop-the-comma-after-a-state – as well as the aforementioned AP and Chicago Style Guides there are citations from the Economist Style Guide ("American states: commas are essential (and often left out) after the names of American states when these are written as though they were part of an address"), The Copyeditor's Handbook ("In expressions of the form 'City, State,' place commas before and after the name of the state"), the New York Times ("The following sentences all lack a necessary comma. Can you spot where?...He was born in Des Moines, Iowa in 1964.") and English Grammar for Dummies ("If there is no street address — just a city and a state — put a comma between the city and the state. If the sentence continues after the state name, place a comma after the state"). It might be going out of fashion, but in my professional opinion it's still current, careful usage. Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed - we need a closing comma after "New Hampshire" because it's a dependent and defining clause (if it was removed the sentence would still make sense, but would be less clear). If the sentence said only "Manchester" with no state following it, then this disputed comma would not be necessary.

Consider these two sentences: Living in Manchester, New Hampshire, is wonderful ... as compared to ... Living in Manchester, New Hampshire is wonderful ... the first says living in the city is wonderful, the second says that the state is wonderful when you're in the city. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok guys, I yield. I'm usually the curmudgeon in these situations, not the loose cannon. I like rules, but I just don't agree with this one, and I think some outdated or eccentric conventions get perpetuated by moldy (mouldy) or incestuous style guides (e.g. USDA hyphenating terms like Douglas fir, NYT hyphenating non-adjectival one third). David, I can see where your example wants the comma, but I think that somehow living ... is calls for it more urgently than does in ... held in the fisher sentence. Thanks to both of you for the input. Eric ^talk 19:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Haddon Hall

Hello Dave. I'm not sure I'd call it a compromise, but I appreciate your attempt to calm the waters. I removed the date because it isn't usual to specify it in that way - my edit seemed fairly uncontroversial, so I was a bit taken aback to find it reverted by someone calling it "sleazy", plus the other insults. I then realised this was the same editor who I had reverted on the Peak District article earlier (here), so assumed they'd looked at my contributions and were just being vengeful and not really interested in Haddon Hall, which is why I kept reverting. This was compounded when I realised this was the same editor who previously had twice made uncivil comments on my talkpage (here and here), seemingly without provocation. Looking deeper, I suspect it might be the same editor that I had a run-in with at the Portesham article a few years ago (a long saga from here onwards), as the dynamic IP addresses seem on the whole to locate to a similar area. Either way, I don't believe this editor is particularly motivated by any desire for improving Wikipedia - how can they be, when they've said it's "to [sic] damn strict"? - and I thus doubt the veracity of their claims. Anyway, these days I'm often near Haddon Hall, so might one day (soonish) take a more recent picture of my own. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

A new picture might resolve it, but I thought it might give the IP an opportunity for a climb down. To be honest, I don't see a massive problem with the picture being dated (another further down the article has the caption "Haddon Hall's long gallery c.1890"), and the date of the photo appears to be accurate. Dave.Dunford (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree it's not a massive problem, and I can understand a caption date on an image from years and years ago (outside the present era), but they always look odd to me when specifying just a few years ago, particularly on historic buildings that don't tend to change much. For example, do you not think it would look eccentric if the caption for the main image of this article stated that the image was taken in 2007? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The anon editor's clearly got a bad attitude and I know from experience how hard it is to let these things go. But this one doesn't feel like a fight worth winning. In his edit summaries he suggests that the entrance has changed over the years – although I don't know whether that's true, if the changes were relatively recent it might be half a justification (and the date doesn't seem that anomalous or obtrusive to me: a caption of "Haddon Hall" might seem a little bit superfluous). Another tack might be to label the photo more informatively: referring to the plan in the Derbyshire Pevsner (p. 222–3) and various other photos it looks like "Gateway into the Great Hall from the Lower Court" might be appropriate. Dave.Dunford (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree this isn't worth fighting over - my motivation for starting this thread was actually just to provide information about a slightly strange edit war. Your suggestion sounds reasonable to me, though I expect if I make it, it will just be reverted, simply because it's made by me. But as I said, I hope to visit Haddon soon anway. I saw it from a distance today, though didn't have time to go close enough to take a picture, or even just see whether the entrance has changed. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

England

Moved to Talk:Oxfordshire. Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

2017 General election

Hi. Please see the full list of MPs elected. As you can see, they all have existing articles already. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Lugnuts:: Noted. Wendy Chamberlain (apparently an unsuccessful LD candidate) was ConservativeHome's mistake http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2017/06/general-election-2017-seats-won-and-lost.html. Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Uffington White Horse

It's not a matter of "making my case". I removed a haphazard list of trivia of no clear relevance to the subject matter and with nothing in the way of reliable, independent sourcing to indicate sustained, non-trivial coverage. Changing the section title from "In popular culture" to "cultural references" is a ridiculous solution. If you believe the list of trivia is important then the burden is on you to prove it via sourcing and alter the format from a list of factoids into legible prose as per the rest of the article. 79.72.142.21 (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Copied to Talk:Uffington White Horse. Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Kindly stop edit-warring. I've clearly explained the reasons for removing the content and you persist in reverting me for no reason. 79.72.142.21 (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Take it to Talk:Uffington White Horse and establish consensus. Dave.Dunford (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

You have edit-warred with me and belatedly created a talkpage discussion to create the appearance of seeking consensus. If you wish to reintroduce factoids from the mess of trivia then please find sourcing to prove that the references are non-trivial. And write it in prose, per the rest of the article, rather than a list of bullet points. And it's a little late to send me messages ordering me to AGF when you've been doing the opposite from the beginning. 79.72.142.21 (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Take it to Talk:Uffington White Horse and establish consensus. Dave.Dunford (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Fractions

Morning, Dave. Thank for the improvements, photos etc you have added to the Eccleston etc articles. I note that you have converted some frac templates into "proper" fractions, but I have never discovered how to do it. Can you advise me, please. Cheers, --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Peter I. Vardy: You're welcome: I was in Eccleston for a party and took the opportunity to sneak out and capture (most of) the listed buildings. Rewarding village. To answer the question about fractions, I use the "Special characters" tab on the Enhanced editing toolbar, which I usually have permanently open with the "Symbols" (fourth line down) option selected. This offers the following fractions with a single mouse click: ½ ⅓ ⅔ ¼ ¾ ⅛ ⅜ ⅝ ⅞. Alternatively (and more long-windedly), I think you can cut and paste from Word.

Dave.Dunford (talk) 08:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

That's brilliant; many thanks. I hadn't tried that one! As you say, Eccleston is rather special, and unspoilt; and greatly influenced by my favourite Chester architect, John Douglas. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Grammar bit

Hi there DD, from Portugal,

In all my years of editing here (one decade and counting), from what I have perceived, you write figures in full ("seventh", "ninth", etc) when they amount to less than ten. After that, it's "11th", "18th", etc.

Happy editing, sorry for any inconvenience --Quite A Character (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, but I'm also an editor and in my opinion there's no universal usage, merely house style. I agree that you would normally spell out the word if possible in a prose setting, but when talking football stats it's not so clear-cut. I'll bear it in mind. Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Help

What does it mean major tours in tennis because it says the let is not a legal serve in major tours! What does it mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.225.253 (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@93.143.225.253: I have no idea, I'm afraid. I'm not a tennis expert and I don't remember editing any tennis-related articles lately, so I'm not sure why you're asking me, to be honest. Dave.Dunford (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia rules to support a POV

With reference to your deletion of my point about the M67 roundabout being infamous (everybody knows it is) this is a classic example of how Wikipedia shouldn`t work, and, furthermore, it`s using Wikipedia rules to support ones own POV (as I explain on my User Page) JustinSmith (talk) 08:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@JustinSmith: I have very little opinion about the roundabout at the end of the M67, so I refute your accusations of POV-pushing (aside: please assume good faith). What you say about the roundabout may be accurate, but that's not the point. If "everybody knows" something, there should be plenty of quotes from a reputable reference somewhere that you can cite in support. Otherwise, it's original research, which is why I undid your change. Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I refute the fact that just because something is in a book or on a website is suddenly becomes correct but stuff which is a fact and provably so by anyone who cares to take the time, isn`t. It`s basically totally illogical, the example of Pendolino windows (on my User page) is the best one. Just out of interest, have you very little opinion either way about the Longdendale bypass ? I`m not suggesting anything, just asking. Personally I don`t usually approve of new roads, they often just create more traffic, but the Longdendale bypass is an exception, there`s no other way from Sheffield to Manchester and the NW.JustinSmith (talk) 10:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@JustinSmith: My views on the Longdendale bypass are as irrelevant as yours on the logic of Wikipedia's verifiability policies, I'm afraid. If you object to the long-established norms for referencing on Wikipedia, you should take it up in the relevant forum, not argue case-by-case with editors who are simply applying the policies. But as it happens, I do agree with the policy: without the requirement for a citation, any self-appointed expert could introduce their own opinion, however outlandish, as incontrovertible fact into a Wikipedia article without challenge. That's true whether the subject is controversial (UFOs, say), uncontroversial (the size of Pendolino windows) or somewhere in between (the misuse and infamy or otherwise of a motorway roundabout). Dave.Dunford (talk)

I tell you what, we`ll agree to disagree.JustinSmith (talk) 13:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually I have found a citation, though this is a classic example of how Wikipedia shouldn`t work anyway. The citation only proves something everyone who knows anything about the M67 knows to be a fact, so what if it`s "original research ? The fact that this information should only become available because someone else just happened to have already researched it, and wouldn`t have become available if they hadn`t (despite it being an incontrovertible fact), is disgraceful, particularly as, in my experience, generally speaking, those taking the info off have an axe to grind. There are a lot of Wikipedia editors who should take a long look at themselves. Not that I`m necessarily saying that`s happened here. Never have I ever taken any onfo off Wikipedia just because it doesn`t have a citation unless I know for a fact it`s incorrect. JustinSmith (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll agree to disagree, as you said, and I don't know why you're continuing to argue with me about it: I didn't invent the policy, I'm just following it and I don't have an axe to grind about the particular edit that seems to have upset you. I was thinking about this the other day: a traditional encyclopedia doesn't need citations because you can generally assume that the person who wrote the entry is a subject expert. Wikipedia doesn't work that way – it's the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" – and if everyone adds their own pet theories or opinions without fear of contradiction it would rapidly become worthless. By all means add your citation but I see no point in your fighting a one-man war against a "widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow". Dave.Dunford (talk) 20:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Your citation confirms that the junction is "congested", but not that it's "infamous", and says nothing about people jumping the queue. Dave.Dunford (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I certainly didn`t suggest that people should be able to put their pet theories on without fear of contradiction. I agree that would be worthless. All contributions should be scrutinized. It`s relatively rare for me to delete other users additions, but I have done so quiet few times if I know for a fact what they`re saying is wrong. Whether it`s cited or not is irrelevant to me, quiet apart from anything any student of history knows you can usually get someone to agree with you even if it`s baloney. For instance the odd historian reckons Hitler could have successfully invaded the UK in 1940. The best example of the citation rule being used for a POV is an addition I had on the Severn Bore page for about 10 years pointing out that surfers and motorboats ruin the natural spectacle. That`s just a fact. Eventually someone took it off saying it wasn`t cited and was original research. Guess what ? I checked on his other contributions and he had connections to surfing and power boats. It was disgusting.

I`d have thought the fact that the M67 junction was one of the worst around meant it was infamous ! It is ! On the queue jumping thing this proves most traffic goes straight on, which everyone knows who uses that junction anyway. Most drivers know what goes on, you can sit in that queue and see cars which have gone past in the right lane appearing round the roundabout. You stick to the rules and try to do the right fair thing and suffer for it, it`s carnage. --JustinSmith (talk) 09:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Justin, you've made your opinions clear. I don't agree with you, and I won't be responding any further. Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Driven Grouse Shooting

I made amendments to this page, which you deleted. I'm more than happy to discuss them with you. Unfortunately, without any discussion, you have accused me of bias and bad faith in your post on my talk page. The Wikipedia dispute page asks editors to focus on content and to assume the efforts of others are in good faith. 'Bringing up conduct during discussions about content creates a distraction and may inflame the situation.'

Are you prepared to have a debate without making any more personal attacks on me?

Serac73 (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)Serac73

Your insertions and counter-revert were also made "without any discussion" and I made no accusation of bad faith. Apologies if you feel I've made personal attacks but I think your anti-shooting position – which I openly admit I share – is obvious from your edit summary ("...written as propaganda for grouse shooting"). I was merely trying to apply Wikipedia's rules, and keep the article neutral. In particular, I didn't think the tone of "This reads as..." was appropriate for a Wikipedia article: the relevance of the heather moorland/rainforest comparison is a valid matter for debate, but Wikipedia articles aren't there as a platform for debate; the statement about the relative abundance of the two habitats is a matter of fact and your addition was an (uncited) editorial comment on the article. With your addition the article felt like it was arguing with itself. Although the tone of the article might seem pro-shooting, it's an article about the "sport", not particularly about the controversy (for which there is already a "Criticism" section).

"What some see as routine control is 'horrific wildlife persecution' for others." should be properly cited (it reads, rather ironically given the subject, like weasel words: see "Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed."). The news story about the badger persecution comes across as random and anecdotal and the use of an external link to the BBC story rather than a citation is non-standard. Some of the broad topics you've inserted are already covered in the Criticism section.

These are the reasons for my reversion of your edit – purely editorial and nothing to do with my personal views, which are probably close to yours. I suggest this conversation would be better held on the article's Talk page rather than in our respective User Talk pages. Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Historic County: Berkshire/Oxfordshire

Hi there, I noticed an edit you made to the page on Didcot, to remove the county information stating the current Historic County. Although I understand that not everyone will agree, the Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements guide currently states that the Lead section should include the Historic County. Furthermore, many UK city pages, including for example Manchester and Birmingham, clearly state the Historic County within the Infobox.

I hope that this clarifies why I have added this information back, to maintain consistency.

Kind Regards, Acapital (talk) 16:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

My problem is not that the historical county is mentioned, but that your wording states that Didcot is (as in "is currently") in the historic county of Berkshire. That's in clear breach of the guideline I cited in my edit summary: "we do not take the minority view that the historic/ancient/traditional counties still exist with the former boundaries". And, for the record, I didn't remove the information, I merely reverted to the accurate and compliant version that was there before, which mentions that Didcot was historically in Berkshire, but doesn't suggest that it still is (as your version does). I don't feel strongly enough to get into an edit war with you but I'm not keen on your wording, which seems to be espousing the "minority view" mentioned at WP:UKCOUNTIES, and your edit summary "...Didcot is still within the Historic county of Berkshire" supports this view. WP:UKTOWNS says the historical county should be mentioned, but not that the article should claim that the settlement is still in that county. Dave.Dunford (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Nor do I wish to debate this issue, but I see that the guide Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements currently states that the Historic County may be included in the Lead section. Therefore, I can only think that both guidelines are in direct conflict with each other, and this is the root of the issue that needs to be clarified. The wording of 'Historically' seems to refer to a past event, and this is obviously regarding the boundary changes between Berkshire and Oxfordshire for the purposes of local government in 1974. But my edits were trying to describe the 'Historic County' which have very different boundaries to the Metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties of England. Acapital (talk) 01:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I think you're (deliberately?) missing the point. It's legitimate (indeed, recommended) that the historical county should be mentioned in the lead where it differs from the current county. What's not recommended, anywhere, in any guideline, is that an article should suggest that the settlement is still in the historical county. Your edit history suggests you espouse the (explicitly deprecated) policy of suggesting otherwise. The guidelines are not inconsistent, and the position of Didcot was quite clear before you changed it; your edit (now reverted again, I see) introduced inaccuracy rather than clarifying the position. Dave.Dunford (talk) 06:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I think we can agree to disagree with regards to this. If the guidelines for the Lead section of town/city pages are like this, then I struggle to see why other pages for towns/cities can state the Historic County in the Infobox. Maybe in the future this can be incorporated into the Didcot page's Infobox. Acapital (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

You really do seem to be deliberately missing the point. There's no "agreeing to disagree" here. Nobody is disputing that Didcot (and Abingdon, Wantage, Faringdon, etc.) used to be in Berkshire, historically (as the current wording states). Nobody has any objection to the infobox or the lead reflecting that (though there seem to be technical reasons why the Infobox UK place template doesn't have a "historic county" parameter – perhaps it should). But you seem to be suggesting that Didcot is still, in some meaningful way, in Berkshire. It isn't. If you have a problem with that view, you need to take it up on the relevant policy page, not by tweaking individual affected articles. Dave.Dunford (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

It would be helpful if the Infobox for the Didcot page included the Historic County. Acapital (talk) 12:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

No objection to that, but the problem seems to be that the Infobox UK place template (as used by the Didcot article) doesn't offer a parameter for the historic county. The Manchester and Birmingham articles use Template:Infobox settlement, which offers up to six different subdivisions. I don't know whether all the functions of Infobox UK place can be emulated using Infobox settlement. Dave.Dunford (talk) 13:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Dashes

I see you've had the chore of replacing dashes in Cawood, Wistow and Selby Light Railway. How do I enter them correctly to spare you or others having to do this? Dave DavidAHull (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi David. I use a script to do it: User:GregU/dashes.js. I installed it a long time ago, so I can't remember the details of how to do it, but it gives me an option in my "More" menu (top right) that conditionally turns hyphens into en rules in whatever article I have open. I've found it very reliable – so reliable that I don't usually bother to check its output for errors. Dave.Dunford (talk) 18:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it's not such a chore then. As I suspected, there doesn't seem to be an easy way to type dashes when writing, so I'll leave it to you and your little friend.Dave DavidAHull (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

To insert an en dash I use the "Special characters" tab on the Enhanced editing toolbar, which I usually have permanently open with the "Symbols" (fourth line down) option selected. This offers the en dash (–) and em dash (—) with a single click. Alternatively (and more long-windedly), I think you can cut and paste from Word. Dave.Dunford

Lymm

Ah! Thanks for doing that! I was trying to clear up unremoved stuff cluebot didn't see and got it all mixed up. Thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

No problem. I guessed that's what had happened. Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. In fact, we both missed earlier problems by one of the ip addresses that later vandalised the same article.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Peak District Fauna

Hi Dave, just thought I'd commend you for the improvement work you did in the Peak District Fauna section which I added earlier on, it looks far better and more informative than it was when I had added it, so well done for that. I'd also like to ask you two things about it: Do you plan on expanding the rest of the Fauna section (the info on birds, amphibians, reptiles, fish and invertebrates) because you only expanded the section on mammals and Do you think a Flora section could be added to it? as I'm thinking of adding a section like that (since both Flora and Fauna are featured in the Ecology section of Exmoor, a featured article) but I'm also a bit unsure about it as it partially is covered by the Ecology section?. Please do answer my two questions when you have time and once again, good work on the Peak District Fauna section, keep it going. Many thanks. Broman178 (talk) 10:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Broman178:: Thanks Broman178. Yes, I had planned to expand the bird section as I did mammals – I know a fair bit about birds and have some reference material (but not everything I need – I have some Annual Reports of the Derbyshire Ornithological Society but for an overview something like Birds of Derbyshire would be useful, but I don't have a copy and it's very expensive). As for amphibians and the rest I have less personal knowledge and fewer references, but I might be able to find something. The BAP lists are a good start but they do include quite a lot of species that are declining on a national basis but aren't endangered or particularly associated with the Peak District, they just happen to occur here. And yes, I definitely think there should be a Flora section; if anything it's more important than the Fauna section, as (in my opinion) the Peak District's flora is more distinctive and important than its fauna (for example, there are at least two endemic plants found nowhere except the Peaks, which isn't the case for any animal that I'm aware of). The second para of the "Ecology" section could form the basic of the new "Flora" section. It should also include references to Thamnobryum angustifolium (Derbyshire feather-moss) and Hieracium naviense (Derby Hawkweed), both endemic to the Peak District, and probably Polemonium caeruleum (Jacob's Ladder, Derbyshire's county plant). Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Your welcome Dave and thanks for the reply. I also think a Flora section is a great idea for the article although until your reply, I was slightly unsure about it due to the Ecology section featuring some information about it. If you haven't already added any more information regarding Flora or even for the other parts of the Fauna later on, I could see whether I could add some more info covering both the Flora and the other animals forming the Fauna (ones which thrive more in Peak District than any other) if I get any time (don't think I can do it now as I'm a bit busy at the moment). Overall, while the Flora may be more important than the Fauna, I think both sections are important for the article (and any other National Park/Upland/Mountainous Area articles) as its useful to highlight in detail any plants and animals which thrive predominantly in the Peak District, and it'll be good for readers. Broman178 (talk) 13:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Marple Bridge

I've just had a communication advising you've reverted edits I'd made to Marple Bridge. I haven't made edits to Marple Bridge. I suggested on the talk page possible subjects the article hadn't covered. I don't know how the suggestions got onto the article itself. If you can still do this, I'd appreciate it if you put them back on the talk page. If you don't know Marple Bridge yourself, I can assure that anyone who has lived there in the past seventy years - which is the time since I last lived there - would know what I was suggesting. I came to the article trying to track down the location of a place named in the Manchester Mercury of 1784 as "Hollins Vale", which I'm tempted to conclude may in fact be what's now Holly Vale - there are Hollins elements in place names there, and was curious. Delahays (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Delahays:: "I haven't made edits to Marple Bridge." – not deliberately perhaps, but you did edit the Marple Bridge article: see here. You can edit the Talk page at Talk:Marple Bridge. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to comment there on your behalf. I wasn't disputing your edit, and had it been on the Talk page I wouldn't have reverted it. I'm afraid I can't help you with "Hollins Vale" – I live locally but I don't know it. Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Cockermouth Castle

Hi I am new to this, how do I make my contribution reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant4493 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Grant4493:, and welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you weren't discouraged by my undoing your additions – I sympathise, because there's a lot to learn when you first start. It's good that you included a reference, but to meet Wikipedia's verification policies, any material you add should be fully supported by the reference you cite, and this case I couldn't find anything on the Cockermouth history page you cite that confirmed that the Castle had at one stage been used as a watermill. I'm not particularly familiar with the subject, so I don't know if it's true, though it seems unlikely with the castle on such an elevated site – quite possibly the castle had a nearby watermill, but I doubt the castle itself was used as a mill. The reference says "When machinery was invented to speed up spinning and weaving the domestic industry declined and Cockermouth, with its ample water supply, became a mill town" – nothing to confirm that the castle itself was ever used as a mill. I also felt that it wasn't clear what sort of "machinery" you meant (the reference makes it clear that it was machinery to speed up spinning and weaving, but that qualification needs to be included in the article for it to make sense). Hope that explains why I removed your addition. Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Stow Minster

Lord save us from obsessive and inaccurate categorisers! KJP1 (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Peak District Flora

Hi Dave.Dunford and sorry to leave another message in your talk page but I'm just wondering whether you're planning on expanding the Flora section in the Peak District article later on like you did with the Fauna. I just thought I'd ask you about this because J3Mrs told me in the PD talk page that the section is good enough as it currently is although I personally think the section needs a bit more emphasis on rare plants native to the Dark Peak if there are any more significant ones because it focuses too much on plants native to the White Peak and only mentions the Dark Peak in a single sentence, making it a bit vague in my opinion. Another reason why I think it could be expanded is because you mentioned earlier that the Flora is more distinctive than the Fauna within the Peak District. After the latest improvements by J3Mrs, I've just recently toned down mention of the South West Peak in the article because I've seen sources (including the PD AA Guide book, a copy of which I own) confirming the area of the South West Peak to be part of the Dark Peak and I'm thinking of adding a bit more detail to the Tourism section sometime later, but I'm just wondering what you think about expanding the Flora? If you are available, please let me know what you think about it either here or in my talk page, many thanks. Broman178 (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Broman178:. I wasn't planning on expanding the Flora section: I'm more of a bird man than anything else and don't know much about flora beyond what's already in the article. I have a botanist friend (from down south) who knew the White Peak well and rather dismissed the Dark Peak as less botanically significant, but there are one or two interesting plants that aren't already mentioned – perhaps we need something about sphagnum and clubmosses (and moorland/peat bog ecology in general), and there are some rarities like Labrador Tea and Bog Rosemary that I believe grow on the high moors. But as a non-botanist I don't really have a feel for how significant these are. No strong opinion on the South West Peak either, really – I love the Cheshire and Staffordshire areas of the Peak, and sense that they're different from my area in the Dark Peak, but don't have the geographical/geological expertise to pin down the differences. Dave.Dunford (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Dave, I just thought I'd ask about it. I'm not an expert on the matter either (nor am I with Fauna), but I could see if I can include some of that detail for the Dark Peak within the Flora section, although I doubt I can do that now, probably sometime later. Regarding the South West Peak, I don't have a huge opinion either although I can definitely say its an overlooked part of the Peak District and when looking at my PD AA Guide and researching it further in the web, the area is mostly considered part of the Dark Peak (which isn't a surprise as it is Dark Peak-like in character but with some pastured/farmland landscapes) and is rarely mentioned outside the Park Authority sites (like I said in the PD talk page, most people think of the White Peak and the Dark Peak when talking about the PD and not much of the South West Peak which is more of an NCA than Dark & White Peaks) so I just thought I'd tone the mention down a bit but I haven't removed it completely as I still feel its mention is important. The Staffordshire Peak District is definitely the closest to me and the one I travel most frequently to as I live near it although since I lived in South Yorkshire previously, the North Derbyshire Peak District has been another PD area I have traveled a lot. Broman178 (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Derbyshire Dales Narrow Gauge Railway

Hi Dave, I see you have reverted my edits (with the ip 2A00:23C5:BC00:8A00:9D29:F62B:A167:41 and 2A00:23C5:BC00:8A00:9D29:F62B:A167:41 which has changed), of Derbyshire Dales Narrow Gauge Railway and Parkside railway station. Back on 17 March 2017 I did provide a link (http://www.peakrail.co.uk/derbyshiredalesnarrowgaugerailway-2/ now showing 'Content not found') to the Peak Rail site which can now be found at the https://web.archive.org/web/20170710212915/http://www.peakrail.co.uk/derbyshiredalesnarrowgaugerailway-2/ web page. If, after checking out these links you might want to restore my edits with the Wayback Machine URL as cite notes. You might also want to take a look at the Derbyshire Dales Narrow Gauge Railway Facebook page. The last comment (https://www.facebook.com/pages/Derbyshire-Dales-Narrow-Gauge-Railway/137303166293177) from a year ago is "It would be a nice little line if only they ran trains again!" If you checkout the 'Other Attractions' drop dowm list box at http://www.peakrail.co.uk/rowsleysouthstation/ you will see that there is now no mention of Derbyshire Dales Narrow Gauge Railway though it is shown on the list box at the above Wayback Machine URL. I am sure you wouldn't want anyone to turn up at Peak Rail with the expectation of seeing a working narrow gauge line. Thanks. 2A00:23C4:D885:7F00:9516:B0F0:4B85:498 (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Tricky. I've reverted my reversion, but Facebook is not normally considered a reliable source, and a 404 "Content not found" page or the absence of information doesn't really do the job either. What we really need is a newspaper article or blog post that actively notes that the railway has ceased operating. Dave.Dunford (talk) 07:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry

for that reversion, dear gnome. An accident. I didn't realise what I'd done... it must have been a bit peeving, most especially coming from someone you'd thanked. Haploidavey (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

No problem – thanks for the reply. Dave.Dunford (talk) 12:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Victoria Arms

Just wanted to say thanks for the Victoria Arms, looking back it really wasn't up to Wikipedia standards, I was being very subjective, It's just that the Vicky Arms is my local and I guess I wanted to express my appreciation of its staff. Thanks for bringing clarity, to my befuddlement. X-mass (talk) 06:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Exmoor

Just FYI the purpose of my edit on Exmoor was to add the page to Category:Geobox usage tracking for protected area type. It is going to be converted over to {{Infobox Protected Area}} so I wanted to get it into that category. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: Fair enough – by all means revert, but your reasoning wasn't evident from your edit summary. Dave.Dunford (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Not going to just revert. You're 100% right. My edit summary was crap. lol. Just wanted to let you know what I was doing. :-) --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Cameron Norman

Restored. GiantSnowman 17:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Thanks. Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi, Dave.Dunford, thank you very much for your work on Museum Wiesbaden! Kind regards, --Gyanda (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gyanda: You're welcome. It could do with a bit more work but I'm not an art expert. Your English is very good but there were a few places where a native speaker would have used a different word or grammar (e.g. "backside" in English usually refers to the buttocks!). Dave.Dunford (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh my god. THANKS for correcting this! Wow! :-), i really didn't know that! Again, thank you very much! --Gyanda (talk) 14:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Didcot

Hi Dave,

Re your recent edit on Didcot, are you sure it was my edit that you wanted to revert? I would have thought it was the previous edit that was the problem.

Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see you've done it. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Murgatroyd49: My apologies – yes, it wasn't your edit that I was trying to revert. I was comparing the latest version against an older version and the "rollback" option didn't do what I expected (I expected it to revert all the intervening changes, but it only reverted the last, which was yours). Dave.Dunford (talk) 06:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

No problem Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Keith Old Bridge

Keith Old Bridge is a packhorse bridge, or at least the article says so, but it is not on the packhorse bridge list. See the articles.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. At 2.8 metres it's a bit wide for a true packhorse bridge IMO and seems to have carried a "road" (but there are plenty of other borderline cases in the list). I'll do some research when I have time. Dave.Dunford (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I had some doubts myself, but you are better than I am on this subject.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 04:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Jim Smith (footballer, born 1940)

On 12 December 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Jim Smith (footballer, born 1940), which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Dave.Dunford

Thank you for creating Pete Williams (musician).

User:Doomsdayer520, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for your new article on Pete Williams. Note that other editors have called for more reliable sources and content. Right now the article does little more than announce Williams's existence. For pointers, see WP:RS and WP:NMUSICIAN.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Doomsdayer520: For the record, I didn't write the text for the article – it came from a user page somewhere (can't remember where, possibly here by User:Chuck Paudermilch). I'm aware of the musican in question, so know of his notability, but I'm not a subject expert. Dave.Dunford (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Mark Sykes

Please follow WP:BRD and discuss your proposed changes on the talk page. FWIW I see no benefit to the wording or the external link being present, hence why I reverted your changes. GiantSnowman 10:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Done, but you were the one who should have discussed your unnecessary reversion of accurate, cited information. Would also point out that WP:BRD, which you cited, has this: "Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed." You did none of that. Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Chris Aspin entry

Hi Dave.Dunford. Thank you for your work on the Chris Aspin entry. Copy editing and expanding references. I've tried to deal with the reference that failed verification. I'm not too familiar with the copy edit process, but I've attempted to improve the new referencing pithing guidelines. Bob (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Brimham Rocks

Please do not revert my edits without first checking the Brimham Rocks website. The situation has been changing fast in the past few days due to government action and the behaviour of the public. Responding to the free car parking available earlier today, they overwhelmed the place and prevented local farmers from accessing their homes, fields and stock. It is now completely closed, car park and all. I have just updated the article with the National Trust's latest official information. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Slum clearance in the United Kingdom

Thanks for replacing the missing phrase. That appears to be my fault. I was simply trying to wikilink "slum" and inadvertently highlighted the previous phrase which was then lost when I inserted the two braces. Apologies; I should have checked more thoroughly. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   11:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

2020 League One playoff final

Cheers for your edits there. It's a "work in progress" and fwiw I usually link each publisher/work every time as there's no way of knowing which one our readers will discover first when they click on a reference. I'll be working it up to GA once the event has concluded, so I'll probably need to re-visit your edits. Thanks for helping out. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Fair enough. I've never really understood the point of wikilinking publishers at all, and I generally delete them out of habit. YMMV. My team (the ones in yellow) are in the final, so I'll be keeping an eye on it... Dave.Dunford (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I can't wait. I hoped to get tickets for the away match but.... life happened. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Scheduled Monuments of Derbyshire

Hi David. I've noticed that you've split out the content of my epic article into multiple pages by district. I can understand why, as the article was getting a bit unwieldy. Please will you credit me as the principal original author of most of the content on the Talk page of each of the newly-spawned articles. Glad to have you as a collaborator on so many Derbyshire and Peak District articles. Thanks, Douglal (talk) 05:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@Douglal: Thanks. The reason I split the documents is because adding nearly 500 NHLE templates to the original monolithic table broke a technical Wikipedia limit (so the last few references didn't render properly) and I was advised by someone else to split it up. Personally I'd rather it had stayed as one table as you originally had it, but I was getting nowhere with the referencing template issues I was hitting. Happy to give you credit, but I'm not sure how to go about it? Dave.Dunford (talk) 11:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Dave, that all makes sense. Thanks for explaining what prompted the restructuring. I understand that when copying material from someone else's Wikipedia article that it is good practice to acknowledge where it came from. So I'd be happy if you would add something like this to the Talk page of each of the new articles by district ... The main content for this article was originally created by User:Douglal and copied from his original parent article Scheduled Monuments in Derbyshire ... Cheers, Douglal (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Douglal:  Done Dave.Dunford (talk) 12:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks Dave. Cheers, Douglal (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Mark Sykes

Thanks for clarifying re:U21 site - please use that as the source for the birth place. FWIW being a "native" is not the same as POB. GiantSnowman 14:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

"...being a "native" is not the same as POB." Um, it literally is: "native /ˈneɪtɪv/ noun: a person born in a specified place or associated with a place by birth, whether subsequently resident there or not." Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks - my error on Skellig Michael, (wasn't paying sufficient attention. Enjoy. Denisarona (talk) 07:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Another beer for you!

Thanks - my error on 2017 EFL Trophy Final, (wasn't paying sufficient attention, I accidentally hit edit on an old version of the page, restoring a load of errors that were already fixed). Enjoy.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Amakuru: No problem - I thought it was an odd edit. Thanks for the beer :) Dave.Dunford (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Ellora Caves

Here, in complete defiance of WP:ENGVAR, you converted spellings to US English, despite obvious "strong ties" to Indian English, a tag at the top of the page, and a recentish discussion on talk. Unbelievable! Really, you probably shouldn't be going round doing drive-by "improvements" that others have to repair. Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Johnbod: I made my edit after noting that "kilometer" was spelled inconsistently in this version. It was a careless edit on my part, and I'm sorry that I didn't see your note on the Talk page (the page is on my watchlist but I don't remember the discussion of WP:ENGVAR). I'm well aware of ENGVAR but not familiar with the conventions of Indian English; I'm British so certainly not imposing my own preferences, if that's your implication. Happy that you've changed it back. Not happy with your "complete defiance" of WP:AGF. Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! Johnbod (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Your help desk question

You didn't get a response to this question. Have you found the answer elsewhere? If not, WP:VPT might be the place to ask.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Combs Moss and Mam Tor

Hi Dave You have just removed categories for Combs Moss which refer to it being the location of a hill fort, scheduled monument and archaeological site. Your reasoning that these only apply to Castle Naze (the most prominent aspect of Combs Moss) is very logical. However the Mam Tor article has the same categories and therefore the same issue. My preference is to retain the categories on both articles as the hill forts on both are substantial features and do not have their own articles. So please will you reinstate these 3 categories for Combs Moss ... or for consistency remove them from Mam Tor, although I feel that this latter option will hinder people finding highly relevent articles. Cheers Douglal (talk) 09:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Douglal: Point taken, but I stand by my edit, and I don't consider Mam Tor and Combs Moss to be equivalent. The hillfort at Mam Tor covers most of the hill, and it's highly unlikely that there would ever be separate articles for Mam Tor (hill) and Mam Tor (hillfort) – they're essentially the same thing. Castle Naze, on the other hand, is just a small part of Combs Moss (Combs Moss is several square miles in extent, whereas Castle Naze covers only an acre or so). It might be a bit pedantic and I can think of borderline cases, but I would expect a category for hillforts to contain only hillforts, not "hills that have hillforts within them". It's not a perfect parallel, but we wouldn't include an article about a parish in a hillforts or ancient monuments category just because it has a hillfort or an ancient monument within its boundaries. The elegant solution, of course, would be to create an article for Castle Naze, which would rightly be included in the categories in question. Dave.Dunford (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Fixed your talk page archiving

Hi! I took the liberty of fixing the auto-archiving settings at the top of this page. --rchard2scout (talk) 11:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Rchard2scout: Thank you. It's pretty obvious what was wrong now I see what you did, but I'd never got round to investigating. Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

What is a mountain?

Hi Dave, in the article List of hills in the Peak District I tried to improve the statement about mountains to respond to your good points about the ambiguous definitions and lack of citations. I know that my amendment isn't perfect but I am disappointed that you just undid it instead of improving upon it yourself to deal with your concerns about it. The Wikipedia Mountain article seems pretty clear that the generally accepted height for a hill to be a mountain is 600m, which is supported by the UK ONS citation of mountain areas. The contention then is about prominence, varying between 30m and 300m. However by taking this range, only Kinder Scout matches the strictest criteria of rising 300m above the surrounding land. So it seems that only Kinder Scout meets all definitions of a mountain. Therefore it would be reasonable to state that Kinder Scout is widely (or universally) regarded as the only mountain in the Peak District. Indeed the Kinder Scout article's short description is "Mountain in the United Kingdom". With Bleaklow's significant prominence, I would be happy to add: "although Bleaklow also meets some less strict definitions of a mountain". I hope that this rationale is sufficient for you to undo my change and make any further clarifications and citations that you see fit to address any outstanding concerns that you have. Much better if we can collaborate to build on each other's work than reject contributions made to improve and expand the content of articles. Please see what you can come up with to make us both happy. Cheers, Douglal (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi there. I don't think there's a compromise to be had, unfortunately. My firm belief is that the claim that "Kinder is the only mountain in the Peak District" is false, for two reasons: firstly, there is no actual formal definition of a mountain in the UK (despite claims to the contrary) and, secondly, even if we accept the widely believed (but in my view unproven) 2000-ft threshold as valid, then Bleaklow (also over 2000 ft) also qualifies.

I am wholly unconvinced that this "generally accepted" 2000-ft criterion actually exists; the mountain article used to explain the lack of a definition quite well, but has become less sceptical in its explanation since I last looked (which is a shame, and I may have a look at it). In particular, the claim that "the official UK government's definition that a mountain, for the purposes of access, is a summit of 2,000 feet (610 m) or higher" is not supported by the citation that accompanies it (which is to a blog that cites a dead BBC URL for the claim, which the blog then goes on to dispute anyway), nor by any other citation that I've ever seen. My view is that although this belief is widely held, it's actually little more than a myth – and so to apply it to Kinder Scout, especially in a way that explicitly excludes other summits with similar heights, is to perpetuate a falsehood. Besides, I don't feel it adds to the article anyway – it's already plain that Kinder is the highest point in the Peak District. See Talk:Hayfield, Derbyshire for a similar debate I've had with others. Dave.Dunford (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Dave. Please refer to List of mountains of the British Isles by height by which Kinder Scout is by concensus regarded as a mountain (>600m height and >150m prominence) whilst Bleaklow is only regarded as a mountain by the broader definition (>600m height and >30m prominence i.e. Simms) although the article Lists of mountains and hills in the British Isles says "the International Climbing and Mountaineering Federation (UIAA) definition of an "independent peak" ... is a threshold over 30 metres. Most lists consider a prominence between 30 and 150 metres as a 'top' ". Anyway no other Peak District hills meet the lesser criteria of being a Simm. So I will update the List of hills in the Peak District in a way that is entirely consistent with the List of mountains of the British Isles by height and will address your concerns. Please support this sensible and reasonable position. Thanks, Douglal (talk) 08:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't support it, and I don't think it's "sensible and reasonable" – I continue to maintain that there is no such consensus. If you've read my arguments at Talk:Hayfield, Derbyshire you'll see that I have quoted citations that explicity state that Kinder is not a mountain. None of the citations really support the notion that there is any such official definition of the term "mountain" – each is setting criteria for a particular, limited purpose (peak bagging, legal access regulations, etc.) and none makes any claim to be explicitly defining the generic term or dividing summits into "mountain" and "not mountain", as you seem to be suggesting. The citations at Lists of mountains and hills in the British Isles#Elevation quote at least two different definitions, so how can any of them be regarded as definitive? Besides, making this unjustifiably firm statement here adds nothing useful to this article IMO. Dave.Dunford (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Douglal: I've posted a request for comment at Talk:WikiProject British and Irish hills on this; you might want to make your case there. Dave.Dunford (talk) 08:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Saddleworth reservoirs and historic counties

Hello Dave

You reverted my edits which appended "West Riding of Yorkshire" to the location information on the wiki pages for Dovestone and Chew Reservoirs.

In fact there is a plethora of both official and other evidence which counters the urban myth that the Local Government Act 1972 (enacted 1974) did away with the counties of whose boundaries have largely been unchanged since Norman times.

While it's true that, among other things, the Act did abolish many county, district and other local authorities (replacing many of them with new ones), it specifically did not abolish the boundaries of the historic counties. In this context, the term "historic" does not, therefore, mean "former", "obsolete" or similar.

While Oldham MBC (one of the ten borough councils of Greater Manchester) may look after the highways, byways and bin collections etc. in the Saddleworth district, that Council itself acknowledges that said district is within the County of York, given their street signage and relatively recent erection of correct boundary markers. In the Oldham area itself, Yorks and Lancs continue to meet at County End (near Lees/Springhead) within the town. It is worth further noting that the majority of the area covered by Oldham MBC is not in Lancashire, but in the West Riding of Yorkshire, its easternmost extent lying adjacent to the Kirklees MBC Pennine watershed boundary at Wessenden, Standedge etc.

Please see UK Government's statement on this subject (particularly the final paragraph of the section headed "Historical Background") at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/celebrating-the-historic-counties-of-england/celebrating-the-historic-counties-of-england

... and do please take a look at this well-researched article:

http://whiterose.saddleworth.net/whitered.htm

Thanks & best wishes, Phil Blakeney (exiled Tyke residing in Ashton under Lyne, Lancashire) phil@philblakeney.com

@Norvin1000: Hi Phil – thanks for the message. However, I'm afraid your personal opinions (and mine) are irrelevant. As I noted in my edit summary, it is long-standing Wikipedia policy (see WP:UKCOUNTIES) that the old UK counties are not treated as still extant. This policy has been debated ad nauseam on Wikpedia but the consensus has never been altered and the policy still stands. Dave.Dunford (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Why the change?

In this change you opined "...probably UK more appropriate anyway". Leaving aside the overlinking that I didn't know of early on, is there any Wiki-basis for the change? Or is it a personal whim? I mentioned it recently at Talk:Jonathan Van-Tam#Nationality in generality - I knew it was you, but couldn't recall the exact article at the time. Thank you.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Rocknrollmancer: Hi there. I wasn't making any particular geopolitical point or imposing a personal preference, but "Great Britain" and "United Kingdom" are not the same thing: Great Britain is the British mainland (i.e. Scotland + England + Wales) and excludes Northern Ireland. As I assume that greaser is used and understood in NI just as in the rest of the UK (e.g. here), "United Kingdom" seemed the more appropriate choice. Also, "United Kingdom" is referenced earlier in the same paragraph and it seemed better to maintain consistency. The reference to "British Isles" later in the paragraph, however, adds to the ambiguity (as "British Isles" is usually taken to include the Republic of Ireland as well as the UK). Dave.Dunford (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Market towns

It is more useful to have all towns in one category, instead of making people search through both the "Towns" and "Market towns" categories. The "Towns" categories also contain cities - they are intended to be a complete listing. I have been through every category of towns by county, and only a handful of towns were in the market towns cat without being in the towns cat. There is no harm in these articles being double-categorised - in fact it is actively useful for casual users. Gladryn St John (talk) 07:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Gladryn St John: I take your point, but it's in direct contradiction to WP:SUPERCAT. Just because other counties are wrong too, doesn't mean Oxfordshire should be: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Dave.Dunford (talk) 08:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Do you not agree that it would be less work for people looking to find all the towns in Oxfordshire? Wikipedia's category system is somewhat broken, in that it is not easy to get all the articles in a category and its subcategories. Gladryn St John (talk) 08:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes and no. But that's a wider argument for the categorisation policy, not one to be played out on individual article pages. I'm raising a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography which you may wish to contribute to. Dave.Dunford (talk) 08:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you - BLM Sandbach

Dear Dave, thank you for flagging the reasons you deleted the entire section. I'm new to this and really appreciate your feedback. However, I'm not convinced that it is not relevant to the Culture of Sandbach, as evidenced by the national media coverage of the struggles this rural market town is facing in addressing racisms. I'm also very conscious that the 'white washing' of the internet - of which Wiki is not immune - and failing to flag the modern history of the town might seem sympathetic to those who are not anti-racist. As you empathise with the subject, would it be possible for you to hold my hand with this? I am eager to learn how the facts I have cited can be presented to meet the wiki guidelines for people to get the full picture of the Town and the Culture here. Many thanks again for taking the time to engage with this very important subject - I look forward to hearing back from you as soon as you're able. Warm regards, Hannah --EquALLIES (talk) 09:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Hannah. I've responded on your talk page. Dave.Dunford (talk) 12:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Samuel Long move

Previously we had a disambiguation page at the title Samuel Long, with Samuel Long (disambiguation) redirecting to it. I believe this was the appropriate state of affairs per WP:DABNAME, but you reversed this via a partial copy-paste swap. Could you please undo it? Thanks. Colin M (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

The problem I was attempting to solve was that Samuel Long (disambiguation) was redirecting to itself. Should be fixed now. Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Looks like that happened as a result of this edit. Pinging Ortizesp just so they're aware - I'm not familiar with the DisamAssist tool, but I'm surprised it's not clever enough to skip pages that are redirects? Anyways, thanks for taking care of the title issue, Dave. Colin M (talk) 04:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)