User talk:Lozleader/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Lozleader. 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. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012
|
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 8
Hi. When you recently edited First Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Brentwood, Rayleigh and Benfleet (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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
County of London
"http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=511942"
Then can you please add this reference into one of the topics that you were suggesting?! Also "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilford" clearly states East London. Unless they are the Queen, nobody has the right to say a place has moved to a different region, county etc. That means that even Romford is only "de facto" Essex at most. And the British Constitution (or whatever) states that it is the principle settlement of "The London Borough of Havering" which is one of 32 Boroughs, plus the City of London, which makes up the London area. Therefore whatever "Joe Blogs" on Romford High Street says, it is meaningless in terms of what is "officially" accepted. But he is allowed to say such things because of freedom of speech. I could say that Barnet is in Liverpool, it is of course wrong, but nobody can stop me from saying such things, or force me to change my mind, because I have freedom of speech, even if everyone can blatantly see that I am completely deluded! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justgravy (talk • contribs) 21:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- We'll have to see what we can do. I think the reference in the County of London article to it being what is now known as Inner London is derived from the legislation that abolished the county. The 12 London Boroughs that covered the old county were described as "Inner London" boroughs, and the Inner London Education Authority replaced the LCC education department. To make things more complicated the Office for National Statistics seems to have altered the definition of Inner London in the last few years (from memory they've taken Greenwich out and put Haringey and Newham in.) And as you say there are many people who appear to genuinely believe all sorts of demonstrably false things, some of them attempting to impose their world view on Wikipedia - present company excepted of course :-).Lozleader (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 15
Hi. When you recently edited Robert Brudenell Carter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair (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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 16
Hi. When you recently edited Robert Brudenell Carter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair (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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
File:GLC arms.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:GLC arms.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 23
Hi. When you recently edited John Lowles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hackney (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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Arthur Charles Fox-Davies
Hi, and thanks for simplifying my multiple references to The Bookplates of Miss C Helard as a source for this article. I see that you query the ISBN number and whether the book has been published yet. I have the book in my hand and the ISBN is as printed in the book, but it could still be an error. So far as publication is concerned, it has only just been published, I think, as it was delivered to me today. A note at the back says: "This edition is limited to four hundred and fifty copies of which two hundred and fifty are for members of the Bookplate Society. Thirty are special copies, hard bound, containing original tipped in bookplates and signed and numbered I-XXX. The remainder are for public sale." So, it has been published but only in a small edition. I assume that copies will have been deposited in the usual British copyright libraries, however, so it should be available for general reference. Cheers. Chelseaboy (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ah well, I'm sure the ISBN will work eventually... at the moment it's coming up as an error. Some interesting bits added by you. Lozleader (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Postcodes in the United Kingdom
Message added -- Trevj (talk) 10:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 28
Hi. When you recently edited Unparished area, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Fishbourne and Gurnard (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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Local government act 1888
Hi there, I see you have done some research on the above act. I was wondering if you could answer a question I have asked on the talk page of the article about the act. Thanks. Yamor2 (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Turton North
Thanks for finding the citation, and for bringing the database to my attention. I hadn't realised the thing existed. It certainly wasn't there last time I explored the Boundary Commission's website. Skinsmoke (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes it's a handy resource... I discovered a couple of months ago Lozleader (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Brackley
Hi Lozleader. I have amended Unreformed boroughs in England and Wales 1835–1886, which I think was originally your baby, to show that Brackley was reformed, rather than abolished, giving a citation from the London Gazette. Do you want to check the citation (it continues onto the following page of the London Gazette, but there is no link so you have to input an amended url), to confirm that my interpretation is correct? There appears to be a reference on the second page to the property, honours etc passing from the former borough to the municipal borough. Skinsmoke (talk) 10:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think you are right, they made it by the skin of their teeth (or one day to be precise):
On and after the twenty-fifth day of March one thousand eight hundred and eighty-six, or such later day, not after the twenty-ninth day of September one thousand eight hundred and eighty-six, as Her Majesty in Council may, in the case of any place or places, appoint, the following provisions shall (subject to the savings for vested interests and other provisions contained in this Act) apply to each of the places mentioned in the schedules to this Act to which Her Majesty may not be pleased before the said day to grant a new charter; that is to say
(a) The place shall not be a corporate town or borough, and any municipal or other corporation thereof existing under any charter or grant or prescription shall be dissolved...
"Municipal Corporations Act 1883, Section 3".
"The old charter lapsed on 25th March 1886 and a new charter was granted on September 28th of the same year."
Kelly's Directory of Northamptonshire. 1890. p. 334.
- Lozleader (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. It looked to be the case, but I wasn't 100 per cent certain. Nice bit of brinkmanship there from Brackley! Skinsmoke (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
NUTS in the lead.
You may be interested in the NUTS discussions taking place in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
List of cities in the United Kingdom
Hi Lozleader. Your advice is required! In List of cities in the United Kingdom, Ely is listed as being a city since "time immemorial". Is this actually correct? My understanding is that, prior to 1974, city status could only be held by a municipal borough, or prior to the Municipal Corporations Act 1835 by an ancient borough. It looks like Ely was a borough at some time, but it was not included in those reformed under the act, was not reformed between 1835 and 1881, and doesn't appear to have been investigated by the Royal Commission of 1876, which resulted in the Municipal Corporations Act 1883. It appears that it was abolished, or simply ceased to exist, before this time. From 1894, Ely was an urban district, which would not be entitled to city status. This seems to suggest that Ely had lost its city status, and that this was not restored until letters patent were issued on 1 April 1974, listed on page 4401 of the London Gazette dated 4 April 1974, stating that "The Queen has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm, bearing date the 1st day of April 1974, to ordain that the Town of Ely shall have the status of a City."
The online census reports add to the confusion. The online versions for 1901 to 1931, list Ely as "Ely, City of, UD", which I presume means that it was officially known as City of Ely Urban District. Was this, therefore, the only urban district holding city status, or was it just the name adopted by the urban district council?
The article at Ely states that "Ely, however, was not formally granted city status until 1 April 1974 by the Queen by letters patent." Skinsmoke (talk) 03:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Ah this seems to be a tricky one alright. Ely was included in the list of cities holding the status by ancient prescriptive right produced by the Home Office in 1927, although it was only an Urban District (given on p.12 of City Status in the British Isles, 1830-2002 by J. V. Beckett [1]). On p.125 of the same book it states that a list was drawn up in February 1973 (as the practicalities of the 1974 reorganisation were being addressed) which listed the 43 boroughs and one urban district outside Greater London considered to have city status.
- I seem to remember some doing some digging on this in the past and discovering there was some continuity between the defunct corporation and whatever replaced it (commissioners?) which eventually became the UDC. And yes, it seems to have been a one off. I'll have have a look around my old hard drives and see if I can find the info, but it was a few years ago... Lozleader (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well the predecessor to the urban district council was the local board of health, established in 1850 for "the city of Ely, in the County of Cambridge, having a known and defined boundary" "No. 21120". The London Gazette. 23 July 1850. Lozleader (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- OK, as far as I can see this is the sequence:
- The City of Ely, which enjoyed the status from TI, did not have a corporation as such but was under the direct jurisdiction of the bishop and his officials.
- The bishop's secular powers were abolished by the Liberties Act 1836. The City of Ely, however, was not. There was no administrative machinery for the city as such. There were two parochial authorities and a number of private companies.
- In 1848 a public enquiry into the administration and public health of the City was held, which found the situation to be very poor.
- In 1850, on foot of the enquiry, a local board was formed for the "City of Ely"
- In 1894 the local board became the City of Ely UDC
- Ely UDC's city status was recognised as valid in 1927 and 1973
- Letters Patent were granted in 1974 to the successor parish of Ely. This also happened in other small cities (Ripon, Truro and Wells).
- However this is bordering on original research!! Lozleader (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Just looking at the chronology of this, it is interesting to note the question of city status only became "live" in 1851, when Queen Vic visited Manchester, the year after the "city" of Ely's new local board was formed. Lozleader (talk) 17:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Wow! Impressed. So, in summary, it appears that the urban district's status was ambiguous, but that this was got round by it being titled City of Ely Urban District. In 1974 everything was regularised by the new rules which entitled civil parishes to hold city status? Skinsmoke (talk) 23:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes that pretty much sums it up, I think. I guess the 1974 reorganisation was crunch time for finally sorting the status out after decades of fudging! Lozleader (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- Wow! Impressed. So, in summary, it appears that the urban district's status was ambiguous, but that this was got round by it being titled City of Ely Urban District. In 1974 everything was regularised by the new rules which entitled civil parishes to hold city status? Skinsmoke (talk) 23:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Just looking at the chronology of this, it is interesting to note the question of city status only became "live" in 1851, when Queen Vic visited Manchester, the year after the "city" of Ely's new local board was formed. Lozleader (talk) 17:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- However this is bordering on original research!! Lozleader (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Another puzzler
Hi Lozleader
Another local government puzzler for you, when you get the time. Taunton appears to have been an ancient borough, but is shown in the 1861 and 1871 censuses as one of the "parliamentary boroughs not being corporate towns". The 1881 census shows that the "Municipal Borough of Taunton was re-incorporated on 17th April 1877".
The borough is not shown as being reformed under the Municipal Corporations Act 1835, which appears to be correct. However, it is not shown at all at Unreformed boroughs in England and Wales 1835–1886. Should the section headed "The Royal Commission of 1876" be amended to read:
A royal commission was appointed in 1876 which investigated the unreformed boroughs and made recommendations on which towns might be brought under the Municipal Corporations Act. The commissioners identified 75 towns with corporations still functioning, and recommended that 26 of them should be reformed, the others being abolished. They also named a further 32 towns in which the corporation had become extinct, although the boroughs still had a legal existence. Of these, 10 had ceased to operate since 1835. The commissioners’ report was not acted upon for seven years. In the meantime, two of the towns they considered suitable for municipal government, Lewes and Taunton were reformed, and the 1835 legislation was replaced by the Municipal Corporations Act 1882.
It may also be necessary to readjust the figures. Presumably, Taunton ahould also be shown in the table under the heading "Boroughs reformed 1835–1881", and the figures amended. Alternatively, should Taunton be listed along with Ashton under Lyne and Peterborough as "towns incorporated in this period that are sometimes listed as unreformed boroughs." A third alternative is that Taunton should simply be listed under Boroughs incorporated in England and Wales 1835–1882, from which it is strangely missing.
The article at Taunton suggests that the ancient borough obtained a charter of incorporation in 1627, and that this was renewed in 1677. The charter is stated to have lapsed in 1792.
What are your thoughts? Skinsmoke (talk) 00:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Umm. Time to dive into the obscure reference books and nineteenth century newspapers.... Lozleader (talk) 10:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- OK, fact one... it definitely wasn't one investigated by the commission. [2] so they didn't consider Taunton "suitable for municipal government". Or at all. Lozleader (talk) 10:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- fact two: The inhabitant householders of the town and borough of Taunton in the county of Somerset petitioned the privy council for a charter of incorporation under the 1835 Act on 12 February 1876. "No. 24294". The London Gazette. 15 February 1876.
- nb to fact two': by "borough" they meant parliamentary borough, I think.Lozleader (talk) 10:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- fact three:
A MUNICIPAL CHARTER FOR TAUNTON - A communication received from the Privy Council states that their lordships have agreed to advise her Majesty to grant a municipal charter to Taunton. The town was incorporated in 1627, but the charter was forfeited, owing to the disloyalty of the inhabitants during the Duke of Monmouth's rebellion. Having been subsequently renewed, the charter was lost in 1792, in consequence of a squabble over the election of a mayor.
- The Hampshire Advertiser. 19 November 1876. p. 2.
{{cite news}}: Missing or empty|title=(help); Unknown parameter|Title=ignored (|title=suggested) (help) - Also reprinted word for word in Reynold's Newspaper with the addition of the sentence "The Liberals petitioned for this new charter." Lozleader (talk) 11:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- All I can find of the 1792 incident is:
- The Hampshire Advertiser. 19 November 1876. p. 2.
Mr Morris obtained three writs of mandamus, one to be directed to the old Mayor of the Borough of Taunton, to command him to swear in Sir Thomas Gunston, the new Mayor, and the other to compel him to swear in two Aldermen.
- The Times. 15 November 1792. p. 3.
{{cite news}}: Missing or empty|title=(help); Unknown parameter|Title=ignored (|title=suggested) (help) Lozleader (talk) 11:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)- OK, thanks for that. So where to take it now? Do we add to Ashton under Lyne and Peterborough, as a "town incorporated in this period that is sometimes listed as an unreformed borough", or do we simply add to the new boroughs at Boroughs incorporated in England and Wales 1835–1882 (it would need to be added there anyway). Skinsmoke (talk) 11:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Another ref which explains the sad end of the corporation in 1792: "The corporation existed under this charter until the year 1792, when the members thereof being reduced to eleven, a number less than the majority of capital and inferior burgesses together, the charter became nullified and the corporate body virtually dissolved and divested of its powers." Tomlin, Joshua (1822). The history of Taunton, in the county of Somerset. pp. 283–285.
- Um yes it needs to go in Boroughs incorporated in England and Wales 1835–1882. I suppose mention it in the Ashton/Pborough para. Something like: Taunton, whose charter had been nullified in 1792 due to failure to fill vacancies in the corporation, continued as a parliamentary borough and the town was incorporated as a municipal borough in 1877. Lozleader (talk) 11:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Excellent, thanks for that. Will set to later today and get it fixed. Many thanks for your help (again), which is always greatly appreciated. Skinsmoke (talk) 11:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for that. So where to take it now? Do we add to Ashton under Lyne and Peterborough, as a "town incorporated in this period that is sometimes listed as an unreformed borough", or do we simply add to the new boroughs at Boroughs incorporated in England and Wales 1835–1882 (it would need to be added there anyway). Skinsmoke (talk) 11:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- The Times. 15 November 1792. p. 3.
The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Henry Charles Richards, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Postmaster-General and Gravesend (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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Possibly unfree File:Stockport 1835 arms.png
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Stockport 1835 arms.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Military history coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
- Arthur Henry Aylmer Morton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to Hyde Park, Farnborough, Preparatory school and Ayton
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Inspector of Regimental Colours, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guidon (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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:Warwickarms.JPG)
){kind=link}
Thanks for uploading File:Warwickarms.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
){kind=link}
The Bugle: Issue LXXVIII, September 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project and/or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Sfan00_IMG. I noted you uploaded this image, apparently under a free license, but it seems to lack a detailed 'fair' use claim.
It would be greatly appreciated if you could confirm on the file description page, in more detail how use of the image is 'fair use' (or fair dealing for Wikipedia purposes.
You might also want to check if the crest is covered by Letters Patent.
A barnstar for you!
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
| My goodness, {{Regiments of Foot}} is an amazing piece of work - well done! I did a lot of reorganisation on these articles years ago, and it's great to see them tied together. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC) |
- A while ago (a long while ago!) I started playing with a uniform template at User:Andrew Gray/scratch - do you think this might work as a summation for them all? It's pretty enormous, but on the other hand it might be better than having four or five comparable templates on some of the longer-lived units. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think WWI has its own template (both infantry & cavalry) simply because someone assembled one. I'll try (again) to mock up a more coherent structure for an overall one... Andrew Gray (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've moved it out to User:Andrew Gray/infantry and started working through the WWI list (to get the links straight). One question, though - where should the breakpoints be? 1881 is obvious, but I'm not sure about 1922. With the exception of the four disbanded Irish ones, almost all the infantry regiments post-22 were the same as before it, albeit with cosmetic name changes. As a result, we'd have more or less the same set of links in each section, which seems quite silly!
- After that, there's the Cold War amalgamations starting 1957 - 15 new regiments by 1962, 9 by 1972. Five more were created by 1995, and finally the 2000s reductions. So possible sections would be:
- Numbered (up to 1881)
- 1881-1962 (subsections for WWI and WWII only)
- 1962-1972
- 1972-1995
- 1995-2008
- Currently active
- Thoughts? The exact years are a bit vague & flexible - it depends whether you count the start or the end of the period of amalgamation. Andrew Gray (talk) 08:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think WWI has its own template (both infantry & cavalry) simply because someone assembled one. I'll try (again) to mock up a more coherent structure for an overall one... Andrew Gray (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
To echo the above, a great piece of work. Can it be set to |state=collapsed as the default? It is fairly long and on some shorter pages where there are no other templates, having it expanded has the potential to rather dominate the appearance of the page. NtheP (talk) 08:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 36th (Herefordshire) Regiment of Foot, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Falmouth and Cork (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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 77th (East Middlesex) Regiment of Foot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Halifax, Nova Scotia (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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXIX, October 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ian Rose (talk) 02:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Lozleader,
I keep looking at it, but I'm unsure what's best. I want to update Local government in England, but I'm concerned that this will mean deleting useful information from the "Future" section, because I can't see where it would fit in. It looks to be about 3/4 years outdated :s. Do you have any views? --Jza84 | Talk 16:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hello there! I've had another thought - some of that material could be moved to the history of local government in England article. I'm concerned that it has some value for somewhere, even if a lot are false starts/failed proposals of the past. But that article seems to deal well with the incremental changes, proposals and reforms that have been ongoing since the late 19th century.
- I've read somewhere (I should've kept it - I think it was the Manchester Evening News, but possibly an AGMA publication) that there is appetite for a "metro mayor" in Greater Manchester, both by officials and the public, but it has been resisted because it would cut across/undermine/kill-off the Greater Manchester Combined Authority. A search of the online press shows simillar sentiments for Merseyside, and a "Greater Bristol" concept; the West Midlands and Tyne and Wear appear to be grappling with their entrenched internal cultural rivalries it seems though!
- What's interesting is that Heseltine's proposals on the metro-mayor have support by a variety of key people - the Centre for Cities, Greg Clark, Howard Bernstein, Lord Adonis, etc; a report by the University of Warwick found the concept to be viable and attractive ([3]). Lord Adonis has called for a metro-mayor on Merseyside ([4]), which has support from the University of Liverpool ([5]) and has been explored and debated by politicians in association with the Merseyside Civic Society ([6]). Digby Jones has supported a Mayor for the West Midlands concept too ([7])... So there's a fair amount of material out there from a number of VIPs, in a range of reliable sources.
- So my own personal view is that "conurbation mayors" or metro-mayors are coming, will probably replace the police and crime commissioners, and Lord Heseltine's proposals will be implemented, but not for, say, another 5-10 years. Interestingly, it actually looks like the current position will be reversed - shire counties/districts to become purely unitary, and the metropolitan counties become two-tier by way of a combined authority led by a metro-mayor.
- How to synthesize that into Wikipedia is the challenge here though, in terms of WP:UNDUE and WP:CRYSTAL. --Jza84 | Talk 14:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Talk page stalker here! Interesting discussion - but, as someone who used to work in local government in the "Greater Bristol" area - there has been in the past (see Avon (county)), is, and will be in the foreseeable future, massive local political opposition to the idea of a mayor (or authority) for such an area, however logical it may seem from the outside. Simply, the neighbouring areas will resist almost to the death the idea of being governed from (or, as they would see it, by) Bristol - partly because of conflicting party politics, but also the old "shire county" mentality. Sorry, couldn't resist chipping in! Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly why I think this would only ever apply to the metropolitan counties, at best, and maybe in a decade's time. It is only idle speculation and personal view on my part as stated, but there is material out there about the future of local government in England. You raise a good point though - the counter-arguement should also appear in any Wikipedia update, and there is indeed resistance out there. For instance, although the Leader of Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council is fine with a metro-mayor for Merseyside in principle, Southport is not ([8])... but of course, Southport doesn't want to be part of anything, Sefton, Merseyside or even Lancashire (when it faced losing borough status in the 1970s)! And I too doubt Greater Bristol / New Avon would ever happen, despite what the occational press release says [9]).... --Jza84 | Talk 21:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Talk page stalker here! Interesting discussion - but, as someone who used to work in local government in the "Greater Bristol" area - there has been in the past (see Avon (county)), is, and will be in the foreseeable future, massive local political opposition to the idea of a mayor (or authority) for such an area, however logical it may seem from the outside. Simply, the neighbouring areas will resist almost to the death the idea of being governed from (or, as they would see it, by) Bristol - partly because of conflicting party politics, but also the old "shire county" mentality. Sorry, couldn't resist chipping in! Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Metropolitan Board of Works, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victoria Park (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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXX, November 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 61st (South Gloucestershire) Regiment of Foot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cork, Ireland (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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:Wessex water.png)
){kind=link}
Thanks for uploading File:Wessex water.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
){kind=link}
The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Possibly unfree File:Rhuddlan arms.png
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rhuddlan arms.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
59th Regiment
I have added a query to your article, which I hope you will address. Shipsview (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Files missing description details
are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.
If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 09:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)April 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Adrian Moreing may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave my operator a message on his talk page. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Why thank you BracketBot, you were quite correct. Lozleader (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)