User talk:Esemgee

Welcome!

Hello, Esemgee, and

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard
  if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

It's to be hoped that other editors will take up DoB's invitation: "You probably should look at how that editor responded to me before", and see examples such as the editing-while-under-the-influence which you picked up on. It's a pity that this editor's enormous enthusiasm for editing isn't matched by a little more attention to detail. I was particularly amused (well, appalled) by the state they left this creationin, with a lovely blue map because they'd missed out a minus sign in the longitude and parked it in the North Sea! (I cleaned it up to this state before it died at AfD and became a redirect.) PamD 14:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll only be accused of stalking him if I point out this horrible edit where as well as removing a lot of uncontroversial, partly sourced, content about the area, DoB managed to place it as "to the east of Portsmouth, west of Southampton and north of Winchester, Andover and Basingstoke."! What can be done to protect the encyclopedia from this sort of thing? I don't (I think) want to see him blocked, but I really wish there was some form of quality control on his edits. PamD 14:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have ANI on my watchlist after his earlier tirade. I asked editors to look at the articles he started so I doubt anybody will bother correcting his inaccuracies. I never use the word "nice" and I certainly haven't called him "vile". I am more likely to walk away than have to deal with this unpleasantness. Sorry. Esemgee (talk) 08:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, I'll back off for a while and leave it to you, in case of edit conflicts - I hope the recent one worked OK, as I ticked to keep your version on all but Geography where I'd been working. I'd hoped that editing a section at a time would mean that edit conflicts didn't happen, but it seems not. Thanks for all your work: the article was a mess even before we started to merge. I rather wish I'd stuck with "Delete", but doing it this way is kinder to the editor who misguidedly created the city centre article, and a couple of people (@Thryduulf:) thought they it "contains some good prose" etc. We'll get there eventually. PamD 08:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have to go out soon, I wonder how many people actually read the article. It contained factual errors, misconceptions and references that bore no relation to anything. I'll look in later. Esemgee (talk) 08:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with changing the subheading to "Governance" but at the time I added only the parish was discussed. Some of these had urban districts as well but I haven't yet added these. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you but it is still governance. I don't think adding former parishes in the lead is a good idea, they are only the lowest level of administration, I'd stick to the current situation to avoid confusion. Esemgee (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For larger places perhaps not but for smaller places the parish data is often the only population data we have so stating its a former parish is often relevant as much of the historical sources like census data etc is for the parish. I asked about population figures at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 28#Population figures but didn't get much response to the issue. Normally if there is more recent data for the settlement I just put the most recent parish data in the "History" or "Civil parish" section but if its a small rural place where the only data is the parish I normally put it at the top. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree you can put the most recent population in without former civil parishes in the lead. I really think the lead should reflect the current situation. If it's historical put it further down in the body of the article. Esemgee (talk) 07:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For smaller places with not other data its probably fine to mention it in the lead but if you think its not appropriate for a particular article then move it further down.

Also I'd note that when an

Thurstonland and Farnley Tyas was a parish from 1 April 1925 to 1 April 1938. As you can see Farnley Tyas was a parish from 1866 until 1 April 1925 when it was abolished to form "Thurstonland and Farnley Tyas" (click "Relationships and changes"). While most urban districts contained only 1 urban parish concurrent with the urban district some like Woking contained other urban parishes so if a source says "Farnley Tyas" was abolished on 1 April 1925 but a source only says "Farnley Tyas" urban district was abolished in 1925 it doesn't necessarily mean the urban district was abolished on 1 April as well but that is probably the case. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

If you look at Thurstonland and Farnley Tyas UD you can see it was renamed in 1925 from "Thurstonland" to "Thurstonland and Farnley" but if you look under "Lower level units" you can see it contained "Thurstonland" CP from 1894 to 1925 and "Thurstonland and Farnley" CP from 1925 to 1938. If may be possible to merge the sentences for the parish and urban district so that they are all in one part but it may create more confusion especially when the dates are known for the parish changes but only the year is known for the district changes. Probably I'd just keep the sentences separate or do you think they should be merged? thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are making it too complicated. This is an encyclopedia and only requires an outline. Readers wanting the detail can look at the references. Esemgee (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then yes I'd avoid merging the sentences, while we don't want to over complicate things we do actually need to address the differences and if we imply a parish and urban district are the same thing it will create confusion. These details aren't in the lead anyway so don't seem excessive. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No I stand by what I said, you are making it far too complicated, this is not definitive, it is an outline. It is far too confusing for the reader. Please simplify what you are writing and stop adding "in its own right" which is not necessary. Over-complicating such a minor issue is not encyclopedic. Esemgee (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is just "in 1866 Farnley Tyas became a civil parish" instead of "from 1866 Farnley Tyas was a civil parish in its own right" better? We do though need to be clear about parishes v urban districts, if we don't it will confuse the reader. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's better. No, we mention CP, then we mention UD, then merger with another UD, then abolition of UD and incorporation into something else. That's got everything it needs chronologically. Simple. Esemgee (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged the paragraphs[1] so its now chronological. The mention of parish abolishment and district abolishment is still separate as we don't know if the district abolishment was on 1 April or some other time of the year. I'd probably be fine though if you think we should state both were abolished in 1925 but I think dates directly relevant should probably be mentioned and as mentioned we don't know if both changes happened at the same time so we should be careful not to imply this unless you can find a source saying the urban district was also abolished on 1 April. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You only need to mention the UD was abolished and merged in whenever it was because it is a higher level of administration, the CP is implied. Esemgee (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be cautious about doing that as while urban parishes were far more connected with their districts than rural ones they weren't synonymous and some urban parishes lived on after the districts were abolished. That said its probably not that likely to cause confusion though clarify does probably pay. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not that likely to cause confusion what's the problem? What you added is very confusing. Esemgee (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Esemgee, Thank you for your recent contributions to the unitary authorities discussion, they were valuable and I'm sorry I didn't recognise that initially. It's easy to forget the person on the other side of the screen sometimes. I think we're getting somewhere now... hopefully. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find I can be as persistent as you are but it's water off a duck's back. Esemgee (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I agree with you there! Glad you're alright :) A.D.Hope (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]