Talk:Coleshill, Warwickshire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] RfC: inside/outside conurbation?

Definitely outside. The link deleted 14 Feb 2006 as blocked by WP spam filter, as cited by Pigsonthewing shows a chunky schematic Streetmap.co.uk map that vastly exaggerates the width of the motorways, giving the apparance of a join.

If you look at a more accurate map from the Ordnance Survey Get-a-map site, you can see that it's separated from the conurbation by a strip of empty farmland, now bounded by the motorways, in the region of the River Cole and Coleshill Hall Farm. 213.130.141.8 12:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
An adjacent map square shows the 'gap' to be less than the size of a small park, and comprise solely the inside of the loop of a motorway junction. Andy Mabbett 20:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
This aerial photo makes things clearer, since OS maps at this scale still exaggerate the sizes of houses and roads. The narrow southern tip of Coleshill is about a kilometer from the conurbation. And zooming back a bit - like so - shows how it diverges even further as you go north. 213.130.142.7 22:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
And zooming in further shows additional buildings inside the motorway junction, making the separation a matter of yards. There are bigger gardens in Birmingham, than the gap between these built up areas. Andy Mabbett 09:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The "West Midlands Urban Area" is officially defined by the Office for National Statistics, and Coleshill was part of it as of the 2001 census. A Spreadsheet showing all of the areas included is available here [1] and a map showing the area thus defined is here [2]. The connection is a tiny one through Water Orton, but it is enough to count as 'continuously urban' according to the official UK definition (which is explained in the introduction to this [3]).

So what, it is still quite clearly seperate. I have an ordnance survey 'Explorer' 1:25000 scale map and carefully measured the gap between Birmingham and Coleshill which at its narrowest point is just under one mile. Saying it is part of the West Midlands conurbation without qualification is utterly misleading.

Secondly that definition is outdated as any 'urban continuity' there might have been between Water Orton and Coleshill in 2001 has been utterly destroyed by the M6 Toll.

Thirdly some of the definitions used by the ONS are utterly bizarre. For example Hinckley is defined as being part of the 'Nuneaton Urban area' ???????. G-Man 22:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I have revised and updated the article to reflect more precisely and accurately the defined distances between adjacent settlements, with the land in between being in the Green belt, as taken from the Proposals Map of North Warwickshire Borough Council (adopted May 1995). Not available online AFAIK, but I am looking at a paper copy here in my office. DWaterson 11:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Protection

I've locked editing on this article until we can make some progress towards ending the frequent edit wars here on this page. I'm not taking sides, because until there is some meeting halfway on how to solve this dilemma and still maintain factual accuracy, I consider all users participating in the dispute on this article to be part of the problem. This notice will be posted to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pigsonthewing, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:G-Man. Karmafist 03:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

How can this be solved by "meeting halfway"? Do you suggest that "Coleshill is half in the WM conurbation"? Or perhaps "Coleshill is in the WM conurbation on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays?" Andy Mabbett 11:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that you follow official Wikipedia Policy, and I quote, directly from WP:RULES.
Wikipedia contributors come from many different countries and cultures, and have widely different views. Treating others with respect is key to collaborating effectively in building an encyclopedia.
I'll be back to check on your progress meeting this goal. You might get some ideas on how to accomodate both sides from looking at articles on WP:FA.Karmafist 15:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

There ought to be scope for compromise here. That Coleshill is a part of the conurbation is a simple matter of fact (as of the 2001 Census at least) and should be stated as such, but its situation is clearly different to that of Castle Bromwich, Yardley or other former country villages that have been completely swallowed up by sprawl.
How about "Although Coleshill is part of the West Midlands conurbation, it has not been completely enveloped by it and large areas of open countryside remain between Coleshill and Birmingham"?
JimmyGuano 22:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
"Coleshill is next to the border with the West Midlands just outside Birmingham, but a part of the West Midlands conurbation. It has not been completely enveloped by the latter, and a narrow wedge of open countryside lies between Coleshill and Birmingham, north of the point where Coleshill meets Solihull" would be more accurate. I note, BTW, that no action has yet been taken, over yesterday's breach of 3RR. Andy Mabbett 22:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good. Now see, was that so hard? I assume you're talking about the G-Man thing, Andy. It's unlikely that it'll get very far as you and him are currently butting heads in that RfC. Most users will see it as a spurious attempt to get back at G-Man since you opened it a week after he opened the RfC. My advice is let it go and move on. I'll be intentionally vague with how much countryside is between Coleshill and Birmingham (until there's an external reference verifying) and i'll add the conurb link if it isn't red, but the rest i'll copy word for word from your entry above, Andy. Good work, unprotecting now. Let's make sure any future edit wars are stopped here on the talk page before they start. Karmafist 08:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Most users will see it as a spurious attempt to get back at G-Man: What evdience do you have, that "most users" would be so delsuional? Was 3RR rule breached, or not? As to stopping edit wars, I suggest you address your comment to the user whose edit sumamrieds include "rm twaddle" and "rv unverified factual innacuracy". Andy Mabbett 09:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Save On Colons

Here you go on the evidence...

  1. Like you said nothing has happened there yet, and there appears to be no rush by anyone to do anything there yet. You can think what you like on why that's happening, but the most likely reason why is what I said above, the apparent tit for tat timing of it. You can see for yourself when both the RfC and the 3RR notice were posted.
  2. If you took the high road in the first place, you would have had a better shot. I quote this directly from WP:AN/3RR.
    We really do mean this; this is not the page to bring up accusations of bad faith, or POV pushing.
    And when they talk about POV pushing, they're talking about the person who puts the notice up there, not the person being reported on.
  3. From the History Page, I count 3 reverts by you on October 13, and 2 by G-Man. Then on October 17 there were another 3 reverts by you and 3 by G-Man, 4 depending on technicalities(he had the first edit of that day, so it's unlikely covered under 3RR policy.) You're just as guilty as 3RR as he is, so people are less likely to take your claim seriously.

I'm reverting your edit now since apparently you decided to ignore verification before changing most of the edit we reached by consensus above. I should block you for this, but i'll be nice and let you revert again without punishment if you can define "narrow" and show proof(a link, a newspaper article, a government report, etc.) and you can do the same with the 1970s takeover, which wasn't part of the discussion above, but I'm going you that homework assignment to give you some practice with adding verification to diffuse tense situations. If you revert that without adding proof, you'll be blocked. Karmafist 16:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

You have no authroity to make such a threat. Furthermore, there was no such consensus.Andy Mabbett 10:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Pigs, that was not a threat, it's my job as an admin. An apparent consensus was made, and I told you what would be needed to be done to allow your edit to be allowed in there without violating WP:NPOV. I'm sorry, but I can't continue to be as nice as before, you'll have to be blocked for edit warring. During that time, either please either work with other users to find a version that suits everyone(which from what it looked like above, was achieved), stop editing this article, or prepare for longer blocks. Karmafist 21:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sigh. Ok, let's try this again

Let's try to gain consensus over here on what the conurbation status should either be fairly general or have attributions over what it is seen as. Let's please stay away from WP:WEASEL... Karmafist 16:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I have been trying to stay out of this for a while, but the present wording isn't too bad. I have no idea why Andy is objecting to it being pointed out that Coleshill is seperated from Birmingham by a gap, as can be confirmed by any map. Stating that Coleshill 'is part of the West Midlands conurbation' without this qualification is utterly misleading. G-Man 21:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Yep, 80% or so of what Pigs said was kept in there, but the "narrow" part or even that there's a gap won't work unless there's some proof, and Pigs has refused to show this proof -- that seems to be the big problem.I'm not going to go out of my way to search for that proof in the hopes that this can be resolved without even more of a Deus Ex Machina presence, which has been necessary to a certain extent up to this point due to Pigs' reversion. Karmafist 01:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I have, and have told you that I have, provided such proof already. Your assertion otherwise, especially in the light of your recent abuse of your admin powers; false accusation of vandalism, and threats, could be seen as a personal attack.Andy Mabbett 09:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Pigs, the only person who believes i've abused my role as an administrator is you, as evidenced here and here. The block was clearly within policy, as evidenced by those two pages. As for the 3RR, both you and G-Man 3RRed the first day of the edit war since it was a POV rather than vandalism, and on the second day, you 3RRed and G-Man 2RRed. It was very unclear who was actually the instigator there, so no action was taken by anyone.

Hopefully this is out of the way and you can explain what "narrow" means and give clarification and verification on your claim or stop editing the article otherwise. Once that happens, the problem is solved and we can move on. Karmafist 21:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Karmafist, your claims are lies. Andy Mabbett 22:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Free editing

PLEASE READ

What I'm going to do now is unprotect the article and permit a bit of free editing. I'm going to ask editors to try this: if you disagree with what the current version of the article says at any time, don't just revert to an older version if you can possibly avoid it. Instead, try to work out what it is that the person who wrote the wording you disagree with meant, and see if you can find a way of putting it that you can live with. The idea is that, instead of all trying to make our version win, we try to write a version together that we're all reasonably happy with. Meanwhile feel free to add any other edits on the way, and please respect changes that other people have made. If you must go back to an earlier wording for whatever reason, don't remove any other changes from the article that have been added since. --Tony SidawayTalk 02:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio concerns

The paragraph which talks about the stocks in the market square [4] is actually a copyvio from this website. So I'm going to have a go at rewriting it. Please feel free to make any other changes to it though. Also, I think we probably need some clarification about the post box. Cheers Paul20070 10:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)