User talk:Cwb61
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Talk
|
|
Contents |
[edit] License tagging for Image:Horwich in Greater Manchester.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Horwich in Greater Manchester.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Horwich in Greater Manchester
[edit] Image:Horwich in Greater Manchester.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Horwich in Greater Manchester.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. Jhamez84 02:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I must also add that his image is wholly inaccurate and poorly formatted. Google maps, the Ordnance Survey, Street Map, NASA World Wind, Google Earth all verify the previous (blank Greater Manchester) infobox map is verifiably correct. Please stop asserting it is wrong as it is unhelpful to readers. Jhamez84 02:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Saddleworth is a different case - it is a civil parish but, unsusally, not a settlement. It is also one of the largest parishes in the country, hense the approach should be different to help establish context with the reader.
- I certainly did not make the Horwich in Greater Manchester map!! No offense, but the addition you made to the original was amaturish at best, and wholly inaccurate (Horwich does not cover an area of that size, nor is it a perfect circle!).
- Horwich should be treated like every other settlement in Greater Mancheser, the Northwest and the wider United Kingdom, and use a standard map. It is now adequately marked, and just needed a little bit of calibration, which several editors were working on to fix.
- Yes you have a right to edit, which I certianly respect, so long as it is within guidelines and does not compromise the article, but, if you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. I think your edits to the map were a retrograde step for Horwich. Anyway, this should all be fixed now, and seems to be marked correctly. Jhamez84 15:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I'd be more than happy to create a Horwich CP map in the style of Saddleworth. Do you know of any other maps that outline these boundaries, as the one at neighbourhood statistics would be difficult to work from. Jhamez84 16:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Horwich on the map
The position of the 'dot' on the Manchester map in the UK infobox is an issue with the latitude and longitude of the boundaries of the map. We can fix this. But first, can we decide on a representative position for the place? How about the junction of Scoles Bank, Lee Lane, Crown Lane and Chorley New Road (I am looking at Google maps)? Is there likely to any disagreement over this spot, and if there is, can you pick a better one? Don't worry about the position of the dot on the map in the infobox. Regards, Mr Stephen 12:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your message. I am well aware that Manchester and Greater Manchester are not the same, and I will continue to not confuse the two in article-space. The first sentence of my message above should read The position of the 'dot' on the Greater Manchester map in the UK infobox is an issue with the latitude and longitude of the boundaries of the map. I apologise if my shorthand offended you. Regards, Mr Stephen 22:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Saddleworth
You're probably right with regards to Saddleworth.
However, the article does say in the lead twice that it has Yorkshire links, as does the introduction of the geography section, as does the sentence about Salfordshire (which is referenced), as does the 1894-1974 administrative arrangements, as does an entire section of the article (again, with refererences).
There is a part of the article that mentions the Agbrigg wapentake (I didn't add this, but think this should go in the civic history section as you suggest). Other than that, I really can't see it being any clearer myself. Jhamez84 20:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please accept my apologies if my message came accross that way! It was certainly not my intention, and I certainly wasn't annoyed (though I was very tired!).
- I actually stated that a) you are probably right (I agreed with you), and b) we should amend the civic history section as you suggested. My listing of Yorkshire mentions was probably somewhat overbearing/inappropriate?
- I do however maintain that Yorkshire is given as significant a mention as the reference material grants, and that this link is very clear when reading the article. I'm conscious of striking a balance, as I know Saddleworth is a histo-geographically unusual place.
- I do appreciate your input however, and so again, please accept my apologies. Jhamez84 22:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
