User talk:Peter Hitchmough

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See my old contributions at My Older Contributions.

Peter Hitchmough 22:44, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Merging 1.1 Oldham 1.2 And Macclesfield 2 Linking images 3 Book of Amos 4 Barnabas 5 Calling Card 6 Linking to Gutenberg 7 ENjoy!

[edit] Merging

[edit] Oldham

Hi - I've put some thoughts at Wikipedia:Help desk#Merge Oldham with Oldham (borough) - hope it helps. Warofdreams 15:53, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] And Macclesfield

Hi. re merging. I take the attitude that the currently existing content on the pages is irrelevant - what matters is the situation on the ground. Macclesfield district covers a much much larger area than the town itself, including many villages - people who would not identify as coming from the town of Macclesfield.

Useful tests to distinguish:

• compare population of the town vs the borough
• how much of the district has parishes? how many parishes are there
• could the district have been sensibly named something else? For example, Leicester couldn't really have been called "central Leicestershire" very sensibly, where it is easy to see Blaby district renamed South-West Leicestershire.

I haven't run the tests for Maccesfield but generally I believe we shouldn't be too keen to merge - it may seem like a good idea but it would be a bit odd to have Huddersfield be an article about a town and Bradford be an article about a local government district covering moorland, just because the district that Huddersfield is in is called something else, whereas the Bradford district has stolen its name... The only real objection is the confusion of using the term "city" for the local government areas, which only applies in a handful of cases, and can just be avoided if needed by pretending that they are all just "districts" or something. I hope this makes sense? Morwen - Talk 19:17, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I demerged Macclesfield and moved some Macc facts to the town page Peter Hitchmough 10:41, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Linking images

I uploaded these images to Commons. How do they look?

[edit] Book of Amos

First, thanks for the positive and helpful comments. :)

The entry on Amos actually is about the prophet and the book. Every other such prophet is split into two entries, one for the prophet and one for the book. Unless you see a reason why it'd be a bad idea, I'm going to split the information about the book into its own article at Book of Amos. That'll help keep things consistent and will hopefully inspire someone to elaborate on both the prophet and the book. (I didn't want to just go and split it and then end up stepping on your toes!) -- Zawersh 08:20, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

butting in ...plus this has the advantage that Users like me can write about the text, with more security than we could muster about the figure behind the text, known— like Homer— only through the work. --Wetman 08:38, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I appreciate the thoughts and agree. I have left the articles separated. It did occur to me that many of the prophets' books are very commonly referred to by just the prophet's name, e.g. Amos, so I have been going through the articles on the persons to ensure there is a see also link to the book. See Amos for an example. Of course, some of those articles deserved a real disambig. page. I am doing this to keep the Wikipedia principle of entry names pointing to what the reader wanted. And going through the route of Amos before getting to Book of Amos is going to educate some readers (shock!). Dizzley (Peter H)

A quick cure is through italics: quickly disambiguating Amos from the author of Amos --Wetman 10:23, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Barnabas

Hi Peter. Looking at your note, I'm a little unsure if I frightened you off from this article. I hope that it was not the case. -- llywrch 00:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Calling Card

Very nice to see yours on the front hall table's tray. I left a note at User talk:Wetman in answer. --Wetman 08:31, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Linking to Gutenberg

Your instructions how to link to Gutenberg are prehaps obsolete. Isn't it better to use Template:Gutenberg? E.g., {gutenberg|no=2383|name=The Canterbury Tales and Other Poems}} — AdamDiCarlo 21:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ENjoy!

Trampton 06:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)