Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:11, 7 February 2007

Scouting in Southport

Galloglass i believe that the Southport page is precisely wher a list of the scout groups should be, as it informs people who want to know about southport what scout groups there are in southport, and is that not the aim of wilipedia.... however i do agree that there is to little infomation and intend to gather more infoation about the district and add it to the page.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.81.33.111 (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

From Cubby14, I'm a member of Southport district Scouts and do know that any more information to that list is not allowed to be put onto the page. Only a list of the Scouting groups can be posted, maybe the nights that they meet on but surely not any of the leaders. I live in a house of leaders and they (and I) object to any names being put into a place where the whole world can see them. There will be a webpage where approved contact details will be provided but not at this time. The list that was originally put there was heavily edited by me so that it was concise and correct. Maybe you can suggest a way rather than create a whole new page where this information can be presented because there is not alot of information that can be approved that can be put on, the list is all there is.

Sefton Central (UK Parliament constituency)

Rod. I don't know if you are aware but the Labour wards that were in Crosby constituency are not in the new Sefton C seat. Only the marginal Manor ward has any strong Labour vote and that is now a Conservative seat also. I might add that all the national research I have read points to it being a Conservative seat with the Lib-Dems in second place. I added the local election results just to illustrate the current balance for readers for whom the detailed psephology would just be confusing.

I'm sorry, Galloglass, but I think your are seriously off-beam in your facts. I don't know what national research means, unless you are referring to Anthony Wells, of which more later. Your fundamental error is that you are wrongly extrapolating from local election results. For your information, the 3 Maghull wards, Park, Sudell and Molyneaux were in Crosby up to 1997. They were always strong LibDem wards, yet in 1992 the LibDems came third in Crosby parliamentary constituency. By all means show the local election results, but a strong caveat is required that these results have little bearing on the general election. RodCrosby 16:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The crux of the matter Rod is that with the introduction of the 3 strong Lib-Dem Wards and the removal of Labour voters in the south, then it cannot be considered a Con-Lab marginal. In all probably it will be a safe Conservative seat. But thats my personal feeling. My basis for the article however was Anthony Wells analysis published at UK Polling Report which was why I said it was a Con - Lib marginal. And based on his track record at the last election, especially in Scotland with all the new seats created there then I'm not one to second guess him.

The removal of Church ward, which was part of the constituency up to 1983 is also a strong Lib Dem ward. It's removal contributed to Shirley Williams defeat in 1983. Victoria Ward is also removed, which is the Lib Dems strongest ward in the town of Crosby. On balance the Lib Dems do benefit, but not to any overwhelming extent. Unless Anthony Wells has changed his mind in the past month, you are seriously in error about his calculation. Do go back to UK polling report and you will find a discussion between him and I on 20th May 2006. He predicts for Sefton Central a notional 13% Labour majority over Con. I have it a bit tighter, about 11%. I would put the Lib Dems on about 24%. RodCrosby 16:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd far prefer if you were to go read the details at UK polling report yourself and then if we could agree on what the correct balance should be, that would be far better than me just re-writing the article, then you re-writing it again... Galloglass 13.25, 28 June 2006

Thanks, I have, but I really can't reconcile your perceptions with it.... RodCrosby 16:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I see you've resiled on our apparent understanding. Can you explain? RodCrosby 18:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Henry Pelham

The reason I had split Henry Pelham's political offices was because the succession boxes present said that he had been in public office before becoming an MP, so I put them in a sort-of chronological order. I probably should have checked back and spotted that the MP succession boxes were wrong; well done correcting them and putting them in the proper order. --BrownHairedGirl 12:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Succession box header templates

See reply on my talk, but I think I've fixed it. --BrownHairedGirl 14:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Alec Douglas-Home

We hadn't used to add succession boxes for life peerages and I've never seen it before, despite working on a number of political bio articles. In my opinion, it seems entirely superfluous to have a succession box for a title that there was never any prospect of it being succeeded too! Also, a person can only ever have one life peerage, and it always lasts until they die. If we add boxes for life titles, where does it stop? We could use them to indicate all manner of other awards, for example "Knight bachelor" (which is often difficult to indicate elsewhere in the article as it has no postnominals, and no prefix if the holder if a peer or baronet). Then we could start to add boxes for OBE, and so on. So I feel the previous convention of not using boxes for life peerages was more sensible. The general public are confused enough about the different sorts of lords without making them think life peerages can on occasions be inherited. An "Honours and awards" section with a bulleted list would be better for life titles and honours.

By the way, there was a reason for removing the colours from the headings (which I don't necessarily agree with). See User talk:Phoe#Templates and User talk:Ed_g2s#S-off and S-Par – I've put a link to this from the Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization page. JRawle (Talk) 15:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. I can see how it might follow from adding the boxes for other forms of peerage, but I think that JRawleis right here. --BrownHairedGirl 15:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough JRawle. I can see where you're coming from and I'm not really fussed one way or another. There are at least 30-40 of these succession boxes out there that I know of off the top of my head that need removing so I hope you'll sort them out :) Btw this brings up another issue concerning succession boxes, that of the initial receiver of a title, such as lord Curzon's Earldom and Marquesate who died without a successor and their title became extinct. Do we need to remove these boxes as well as they too had neither a predecessor or a successor ? Thanks Galloglass 16:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

If it's a hereditary title, there was a chance it could have been inherited, so it makes more sense to have it there marked "extinct". The opening will say "1st Earl of Wherever" so it's useful to know why there isn't a 2nd Earl... It's also interesting to see how all the titles of someone like Curzon interact. I guess this could be an argument again for including boxes for life peerages. However, the vast majority of life peers had no hereditary titles, and I really wouldn't like to see boxes added to every life peer's page. JRawle (Talk) 17:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, its not really consistent though to include a 1st Peerage with no successor any more than it is to remove a Lfe title as there is no predecessor or successor in either case. Either you keep both or remove both, to argue as you do that its usefull to know there is no sucessor is not really relevant. No 2nd peer of a hereditary title is the same result as a Life title and would not need a succession box under a uniform approach. Galloglass 00:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

By all means raise this at project peerage but I agree with Jrawle. There is an expectation of inheritance with a hereditary peerage so that having a box even for an extinction clarifies and gives expected information. The same is not nor could it ever be true for a life peerage. Alci12 09:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

CFD for MPs by Parliament

see CFD for category:MPs of the United Kingdom House of Commons, by Parliament and subcategories. Your comments would be welcome. --BrownHairedGirl 17:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Member for

Hi Galloglass, I hadn't seen that discussion. I have gone through the succession boxes and have stated that there are much more with the 'Member of Parliament' style (mostly in articles for persons who have lived and live in modern time) than the shorter 'Member' style. I therefore thought, that I might be a good idea to bring them to one line, but now I know I have decided in favour of the wrong style (how can it be different). I will revert these I've already changed and will change all others I find in future. Thanks for your notice. Greetings Phoe 18:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ormskirk (UK Parliament constituency)

I'll have a look when I get a chance -- probably be next week. Kahuzi 07:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Done Kahuzi 16:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Liverpool Abercomby (UK Parliament constituency)

Your recent edit to Liverpool Abercomby (UK Parliament constituency) (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Misplaced Pages articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 11:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Liverpool Abercomby (UK Parliament constituency)

As per request on my talk, Liverpool Abercomby (UK Parliament constituency) deleted. --BrownHairedGirl 18:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Cheers BrownHairedGirl :) Galloglass 18:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Be more careful

Hi, I didn't trash the Liverpool constituancies but instead put them in a hierachy. What you have done is re add redundant cats. Please be more careful in future.--MinedOutOffHisPiste 18:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I think you both have a good point, and I have replied at my talk with proposed solution. Please could you let me know what you think? Thanks --BrownHairedGirl 14:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Constituency pages

This is simply not the case. See the project page for details. Joe D (t) 13:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to read the acres of pages already written on the matter, which include responses to your "vague" claim. I'm not going to go over it again on one person's talk page. Joe D (t) 13:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandal

It is you that is vandalising the page. Having walked in the area many times I can asure you that Ormskirk is above the plain by some distance, as you say 11 m, that is a crucial height when it comes to being above the flood plain. Whilst it may not live up to the offical recognition of a hill it not part of the plain when walking from Ormskirk to Burscough the land drops of to the right and the flatness of the area can be seen. The reason Ormskirk is there is because of the height above the plain all the towns and villages are on hills from Ince Blundell upward. Have a look at Downholland Moss that is what a plain looks like. Note the lack of contours. Now compare this with Ormkskirk.--84.9.211.122 01:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

West Lancashire

Hello. I moved West Lancashire back from West Lancashire District Council. The article is a geographical article, of sorts: political information is confined to a brief mention in the infobox. If you are going to write an article about west Lancashire in general (I don't know if that's an accepted geographic term, but I suppose it would actually be an area with a coastline!), or make it a disambiguation page (possibly to West Lancashire (UK Parliament constituency) given your edit history?); then please feel free to move West Lancashire again: except please do this to West Lancashire (district). You might compare for example our separate articles about the Metropolitan Borough of Sefton and Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council - one is an article about a borough, and one is about the corporate entity. The population of the District Council is 25 ;) Morwen - Talk 14:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Ta. By the way, it looks like the naming convention may change again to District of West Lancashire, so we'll see. It's a somewhat odd name, for a nearly entirely inland district in a county posessing an extensive coast - the original West Lancashire Rural District, which it inherited the name from, I guess, had a bit more coastline. Its name was a bit irregular - usually it should have been the Ormskirk Rural District. I wonder why and how it changed name. Morwen - Talk 17:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. You'll have to work out the successor constituencies yourself unfortunately, Youngs stops after the 1974, alas. It looks like the constituency got split 3 ways between Knowsley, Sefton and West Lancashire, so I should expect there to be 3 successor constituencies as well. Morwen - Talk 22:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, not touching that one with a barge pole. I can grab out what Youngs says, though it may not be useful unless you also know what the wards are. Morwen - Talk 15:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Constituency changes

Hi. I have copies of:

• The Parliamentary Constituencies (England) Order 1970
• The Parliamentary Constituencies (England) Order 1983
• The Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) Order 1970
• The Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) Order 1970
• The Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) Order 1983
• The Parliamentary Constituencies (Northern Ireland) Order 1970
• The Parliamentary Constituencies (Northern Ireland) Order 1982

And the schedules of the:

• Parliamentary Boundaries Act, 1832
• Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1832
• Representation of the People Act, 1867
• Redistribution of Seats Act, 1885
• Representation of the People Act, 1918
• Representation of the People Act, 1948

As well as both volumes of Youngs, so if you have any particular query about which way constituencies split or merged i should be able to track it down. Lozleader 16:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

St George Hanover Square

As you're probably aware, it was created in 1885, and was listed in the fourth schedule of the Redistribution of Seats Act 1885 (New Boroughs):

• Name of Parliamentary Borough: St. George, Hanover Square.
• County: Middlesex
• Number of Members: One
• Contents and Boundaries of Parliamentary Borough: Parish of St. George, Hanover Square.

The boundaries were unchanged until 1918. The parish was included in the Metropolitan Borough of Westminster in 1900.

Schedule 9(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1918 listed the parliamentary boroughs of the County of London.

The Parliamentary Borough of Westminster, corresponding to the Metropolitan borough of Westminster was divided into two divisions, Abbey and St George's.

The "Contents or Boundaries" of St George's Division were:

• Conduit,
• Grosvenor,
• Hamlet of Knightsbridge,
• Knightsbridge
• St. George's and
• Victoria Wards,
• and "the part of Charing Cross Ward which lies to the south and west of a line drawn from the ward boundary at the centre of Wellington Arch, along the middle of Constitution Hill, thence along the middle of the road to the north and east of the Queen Victoria Memorial, thence along the middle of Spur Road to the boundary of St. Margaret Ward."

These were the boundaries until the 1948 redistribution when it became part of the "Cities of London and Westminster". Not sure if that helps? Lozleader 17:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Blackburn (historic UK Parliament constituency)

Hi Galloglass, thanks for your message. See a red-faced reply on my talk. --BrownHairedGirl 16:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

HMS Venturer

Saw you classed this as a U-class submarine. By its name alone, I would suggest this was probably a lter V-class vessel instead. i know wikipedia does not currently have such a category but V-class vessels did exist at the end of WWII, there just weren't many of them. Didn't want to revert your edit, just wanted to check with you there wasn't a reason you classified it as U-class. Cheers - PocklingtonDan 20:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift response on my user talk page. I bow to your superior knowledge on this one! I shall add the info you provided to the articles and categories. Thanks - PocklingtonDan 08:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Brecon and Radnorshire (National Assembly for Wales constituency)

Just wondering what your source was for the 1999 election, as the Plaid Cymru candidate seems to have a different surname on the BBC website () minor thing really of whether its Patterson or Petersen. Mikebloke 21:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Southport.gb

Am a bit surprised that you've restored this link. The owners of this site are simple link farmers who put a few local news items from other sites that the top of their pages through out the country to disguise it as a news page.

It's a nice judgement. I think we should give give them (as Nicholas Parsons would say) the benefit of the doubt. Aside from the BBC, UK news media are commercial organisations that thrive on advertising (and even the BBC spends a lot of time and effort on advertising itself and its commercial activities). The front pages of perfectly respectable newspapers like the Times and the Southport Visiter were once taken up entirely by advertisements - and the Visiter's website pays testimony to the enduring appeal of this approach. I suspect from the details you give on your user page that you may not be happy with the editorial ethos of southport.gb. Well, I don't touch the Sun, but it's a newspaper.

As to the frequency of my Southport edits - I suspect most of the Ireland edits are done by expatriates, too! Countersubject 19:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Post towns

• Hello, I see you were one of the few to attack my contributions after I was 'temporarily blocked'. I would like to point out that the Postal Area WN is divided into four 'Post Towns'. These are as follows: 1. Wigan. 2. Skelmersdale. 3. Ashton in Makerfield. 4. Leigh. The 'Post Town' for Bryn is Ashton in Makerfield. This is what the Royal Mail say is correct and they are the organisers of the postal system:...........

Area Post town Districts

WN Wigan WN1, WN2, WN3, WN5, WN6 WN Ashton in Makerfield WN4 WN Leigh WN7 WN Skelmersdale WN8

80.192.242.187 22:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

Surely this guy can't be as thick as he's trying to make himself out to be... Galloglass 23:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sock Puppet?

PLEASE, check my contributions BEFORE you alter any! You have reverted Sankey Viaduct BEFORE you have read it's history. The Sankey Viaduct straddles the BOUNDARY between Warrington Borough and Metropolitan Borough of St.Helens. The link I gave clearly says the Sankey Viaduct was built in Earlestown.

The Royal Mail classify Ashton in Makerfield as a Post Town. Are THEY as 'Thick' as they seem? Yes, Bryn and Ashton in Makerfield are in the Wigan 'Postal District', hence the WN postcode, but Wigan is NOT the 'post town'.

Before reverting, contact me and give YOUR version of matters. Surely you aren't too ARROGANT to do that? Or am I wrong? 80.192.242.187 01:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC) Jemmy H.