User talk:Zangar/Archive 1

Archive 1

Welcome

I can't help but notice that you haven't been welcomed by anybody yet.. so welcome! I know you account isn't so new, but you have made few edits, its good to see such a new user making such constructive edits. I hope you stay here for a long time! If you do ever need help with anything, feel free to drop me a note on my talk page. Jenuk1985 | Talk 19:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the great welcome! I'll try my best to keep up my editing. Any links on how to "snazz-up" my user page would be greatly welcomed! Zangar (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I would offer to design something for you, but I strongly feel a user page is a very personal place, which should evolve as a user establishes him/herself here, you will pick up various design aspects as you go around. Wikipedia:User Page Design Center is well worth a read if you are interested in snazzing it up :) Jenuk1985 | Talk 18:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

There, my user page has had its long-awaited revamp! I'm afraid I took a lot of inspiration from you, Jenuk, but I hope you agree: imitation is the best form of flattery! Your page was the best example of a two-column split, which I prefer. Although, I am having problems with the alignment of my userboxes (in Internet Explorer?), any tips or a quick fix from anyone would be welcomed! Zangar (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		All things considered, you deserve this for the great start you have made on Wikipedia, take this as encouragement to continue to be amazing! I hope this is the first of many barnstars to come for yourself. Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikibreak

As of tomorrow (04/June/09) I'll be taking a Wikibreak to go on my travels and attend a conference. See you again soon, happy editing! Zangar (talk) 10:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

There, I'm back now, with new country and state flags on my Userpage! Hopefully I'll be back in the swing of editing soon, although I do have to move house now :-S Zangar (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Stargazy pie prebake.JPG

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Stargazy pie prebake.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 05:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

 sorted - thanks for pointing it out! Zangar (talk) 07:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Bodmin General railway station

Resolved

 – Redrose64 (talk) 13:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know when. The article I got the information from states:

... only one place — Wrexham — retains a "General" station. Mr. Colin Jones enquires when this distinctive Great Western form of station nomenclature was introduced. As well as Cardiff, it seems that Chester ... had received the appellation before nationalisation; and Banbury, Bodmin, ... and Wrexham became "General" shortly afterwards to distinguish them from stations of other former companies in the same town.

--Redrose64 (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No problems, it was just that it'd be good to tag a date to the info. I thought I'd leave that to someone who was born around the time and might know that more readily. I can always do a quick search for that later. :) Zangar (talk) 12:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Date now added, from Butt. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

List of postcode districts in the United Kingdom

Thanks for the Barnstar, a pleasant surprise! Thanks too for your recent contributions to the discussion. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that there aren't many people taking an interest in such obscure things as List of postcode districts in the United Kingdom, or perhaps the peaceable debate simply reflects the existence of a consensus! I'm now wondering what might be done to regularise (and maybe transclude into a giant list) the lists in each of the AB/AL/.../ZE postcode area articles. Clearly there is a balance to be struck between making the lists consistent and authoritative versus allowing those with local knowledge flexibility to add non-postal placenames and related information. – Richardguk (talk) 03:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Use of the 'Weasel Words' tag

Hi Zanger, a belated welcome to WikiProject Cornwall which I see you joined on 22 March 2009.

Regarding your placement of a 'Weasel Words' tag in the article on Bodbrane, I am not a biter so, of course, I assume you acted in good faith.

However, with respect, I think you may have misunderstood the definition of 'weasel words'.

To quote from the WP entry: Weasel words are phrases that are evasive, ambiguous, or misleading. On Wikipedia, the term refers to evasive, ambiguous or misleading attribution.

In the case of the article you tagged, there is nothing ambiguous or evasive about the statement of fact which was cited to an authoritative source.

If you wish to contest the tag or talk further about the article, I suggest moving this discussion to the WikiProject Cornwall talk page so that fellow project members can participate and, in the case of dispute, reach a consensus

Best wishes, Andy F (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hullo again Zangar. Duncan has commented here. Andy F (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Andy. Thanks for pointing that out - my mistake on the {{who}} tag, I assumed it meant something it didn't.
Welcome back to wikipedia as well! Although you went on a wikibreak before I joined, I have noticed some very good (and prolific!) edits/creations on the Cornwall geographic pages I trawl! It's nice to finally meet you and have you back!
Cheers, Zangar (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that, Zangar, nice to meet you too. I see you've made a good start and been busy - keep it up :) Andy F (talk) 08:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You are appreciated

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	for quietly getting on with the job! DuncanHill (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Duncan! It means a lot coming from a WP:Cornwall work-horse such as yourself. I hope to keep it up. Zangar (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on your Barnstar, Zangar Andy F (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Your question at WT:Verifiability

Just so you know, I have moved your question about Google Street View to its own thread... I think it would get lost where you put it (in the "Text vs. other media" thread) and I think it deserves its own discussion. Not sure how I would answer your question... so I will leave that to others. Best, Blueboar (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that! :) Zangar (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I've slung my tuppenceworth in as well, mate : ) Andy F (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Zangar, it looks as if we have an answer re Streetview here Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Google_Street_View. Andy F (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Great! In which case, are you ok if I put back the twinning info in Antony, Cornwall without a reference at the moment? We can always use the sign (through google street view) as a reference if necessary. Zangar (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely! Go for it. If you get a minute, try Googling to see if there's any reference to local media of, say, twinning visits etc. Best, Andy F (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, nothing to do with the above but here is a useful tool when you are creating or editing places [1] – it gives lat and long using Google mapping. Andy F (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a very useful tool, thanks for that! Saves me changing numbers in multimap to try and get the red circle lined up! Also finally found a twinning reference, it was quite buried. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Seven Bays ?

Hi Zangar, would you like to see what you make of Seven Bays, a new unreffed article? Andy F (talk) 07:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I had a quick look and I'm not too sure what to make of it, there seem to be no verifiable online refs on Seven Bays, and anything seems to be about a restaurant in the area (so might be a stealthy spam page?). I'm not from the north of Cornwall, so I don't know myself. User:Peterwill I have noticed comes from around there, so he might have a better idea. I'll see if I can have a better look into it once I get back off my wikibreak. Cheers! Zangar (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Zangar, sounds good. I'll leave it with you and Peter. All I could find online was that restaurant and similar tourist gumph. Best wishes, Andy F (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back

Hi Zangar, I see you've returned from your 'semi-wikibreak' - but obviously not by air travel - so welcome back. Andy F (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Andy, I'm glad I stayed in sunny Dorset! It's good to be back. Zangar (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

List of Cornwall parishes

Hi Zangar, I have recently compiled (from the official list on the Cornwall Council website) a new list of Cornwall's current civil parishes with parish, town or city (Truro only) councils. It is here: User:Andy F/Sandbox2.

The list is intended to either replace entirely, or to supplement and update in parallel, this list: List of civil parishes in Cornwall .

Please have a look, check the entries, and let me know what you would prefer – replace or supplement? Best wishes as ever, Andy F (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Andy, I'm really glad you raised this issue, it's something I wanted to raise in WP:Cornwall myself after the election (I've kind of wandered off on to politics based articles as a result!).

On top of the list page, I think we also need to work out what we do with each article of civil parishes that has been abolished/altered. And as a result update the civil parishes nav boxes (which might also need to be discussed).

I'll put my full answer on the WP:Cornwall talk page, to make sure all discussion takes place in one place. Thanks for bringing this up! Zangar (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice one, Zangar – thank you. Andy F (talk) 06:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Parishes

Hi Zangar, ready to move on this. Your opinion please. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cornwall#Updating_parishes_and_local_councils Andy F (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I've seen your very helpful and positive reply, Zangar – thanks. Now we'll wait to see what the others reckon. All the best, Andy F (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Civil Parish navigation boxes

Hi Zangar, how's tricks. I like your idea for Cornwall civil parish navboxes by constituency (here). How are you progressing with them? Give me a shout if you need a hand. Best wishes, Andy F (talk) 07:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Andy, I'm back from my wikibreak now. The lists for the nav boxes are almost compiled, now I've been able to get back to them. I'll hopefully put all the examples up on the WP:Cornwall talk page tonight/tomorrow with a proposed plan of action. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 11:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. –xeno^talk 17:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Well deserved

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	To Zangar for excellent work on the new Civil parishes in Cornwall nav boxes Andy F (talk) 17:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Andy! It was tiring but we got there! I was going to give you a barnstar for all your great catagorisation work once I'd finished, but I ran out of steam at the computer. So here it is now! Well done! Zangar (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Zangar -- greatly appreciated. Upward and onward with WP:Cornwall! Andy F (talk) 07:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

St Endellion

All seems sorted with the images - everyone's happy. Nice work Zangar. (BTW, I took the liberty of deleting the TB from this section.) Best wishes, Andy F (talk) 09:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

List of civil parishes in Cornwall

Hi Zander. Thanks for your comments. I've replied at some length, with suggestions on how to incorporate your additions, on my Talk page. Please let me know there what you think. Skinsmoke (talk) 15:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

At last, I've got back to you with a worked up example at my Talk page. Skinsmoke (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help so far. Glad to see you have not fallen into the habit most people have when they do this, which is put a picture of a church up for nearly every parish (very often they are the best picture from a parish, but I always think the list should give a pictorial overview of the county as a whole, illustrating not just churches (and chapels), but the industry, agriculture, customs, physical geography, economy etc.). You've got a good range of subjects, including a couple that are a bit "off the wall": love the lifeboat station and the otter! A couple are a bit on the dark side at the low resolution, and we may need to go back and see if we can find something better later on, but, all in all, a bloody good start! (You may have noticed from the history, I do go back and change some of the images I've selected, if I don't feel they are working as a whole: Morvah is a case in point, and that isn't counting the four or five I changed before pressing the "save" button!). Sometimes an image looks great at the larger resolution, but just doesn't work at all as a smaller image. At least, so far, there are no very small parishes with populations less than 10. Finding images for those in Cheshire was a nightmare! Skinsmoke (talk) 00:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I've also contacted the Cornish Language Board about the missing Cornish names. They've got back to me today to say it may take a while, but they will put the list to a meeting of their panel of experts as a priority, and get back with their deliberations. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought I'd follow your lead with the pictures, it certainly makes sense and looks a whole lot better for having a range of pics. I thought we'd have difficulty with getting pics that weren't of churches, as that's the only pic that's in most of the civil parish articles. But looking at the civil parish category on commons, there's quite a few. So far I haven't needed to get any extra through TUSC, but as you can see, I have signed up for an account. Well done for contacting the Cornish Language Board, it pays to be proactive! Also, sorry for leaving you with Pentewan Valley, I hadn't realised what a pain that would be for getting a population and a reference. Although the ref you provide just takes you to the data input stage, can we put a link to both wards perhaps in one ref? Zangar (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Deliberately left the reference vague as you have to create an area using census output areas in conjunction with the 2003 ward boundaries and then balance the resulting figure to the total for all the other parishes in Cornwall, and also for the individual wards (the portion of Pentewan Valley in Mevagissey ward is easy, as it's the balance of the ward left after the other three parishes have been extracted). Even then, the total is not exact, as the new boundaries don't coincide with output areas, but it's the best we (or anyone else) will be able to get until the 2011 census figures are produced (the portion of Pentewan Valley in St Ewe ward is less easy to calculate, as a boundary between Pentewan Valley and St Austell Bay has to be aqpproximated to census output areas). On balance I thought it was better to include a figure, provided that it was possible to balance out the county's figures, though it could always be challenged. It took me about 8 hours to balance Cornwall! It was the reason I was so long getting back to you the other day, as I searched for a missing 432 people I couldn't account for! This is not just a problem for parishes created since 2003 (when the census output for parishes was published), but also for unparished areas in other counties, especially where two or more are adjoining (the metropolitan counties are the worst). So far, the figures haven't been challenged, and I was a little surprised to note that they've been borrowed for the articles on a few of the towns in those areas. The methodology is the same used by the Office for National Statistics in recalculating figures for revised wards, which are also a "best fit" solution, as the new ward boundaries invariably don't match up exactly with census output areas. If only life was simple! Skinsmoke (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, in the early stages I did try to use the census figures for "urban areas", but trying to work out which output areas are, or are not, included in those proved impossible, and they are incompatible with the "parish headcount" figures, and so the district/county will not balance. At least the "usual resident population" figures are derived from the same dataset as "parish headcounts", and balance out (with a little effort on occasions!). Skinsmoke (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I've put up a request at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop for maps along the lines of the English metropolitan counties to be prepared for the rest of the United Kingdom. It's an enormous task, so I'm not holding my breath!

Another thought that has occurred is whether it is time to reorganise the subpages of List of civil parishes in England by district, rather than ceremonial county. The advantages are that the page upgrade will not break the page for the larger counties (Somerset has 417 parishes; Devon has 425; Suffolk has 475; Norfolk has 540; Lincolnshire has 592; and North Yorkshire has 783!); and that it would free a column, which can be used for abolished post 1974 districts. The disadvantages are that it will no longer be possible to sort county-wide by name, population or former district; and that some districts have very few (or no) parishes. I think any such decision would need to be discussed at Talk:List of civil parishes in England and Talk:List of communities in Wales (or perhaps referred to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography), and at the moment I haven't come to any firm opinion, but it's an option for the future, and it may solve the districts problem for Cornwall, where the only other impact would be that a new page would be created for List of civil parishes in the Isles of Scilly. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it just occurred that another option would be a mix-and-match solution. Have separate pages for the unitaries with parishes (not much point for those that have unchanged boundaries like Nottingham, Telford and Wrekin or Darlington); for districts in counties with more than, say, 400 parishes (North Yorkshire would still have 751 parishes even after York has been excluded; Lincolnshire 514 after excluding North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire; Norfolk would remain unchanged at 540; Suffolk unchanged at 475; Devon would still have 424 after excluding Plymouth and Torbay; but Somerset would fall to a manageable 329 after excluding both Bath and North East Somerset, and North Somerset); and leave the rest in their present format. It would mean changing the access route from List of civil parishes in England, otherwise it could prove very confusing, perhaps by using redirects from, for example List of civil parishes in Plymouth to a new page titled List of civil parishes in Plymouth and South Hams, or from List of civil parishes in Blackpool to List of civil parishes in Lancashire. All needs a bit of thinking about, I think. Wouldn't work, as the main point is to free up a column! Skinsmoke (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I've taken it about as far as I can, without the former districts map (still no takers for producing that). Have put a note in the column header explaining about the districts (and done the same for Cheshire). See what you think. Are we in a position to move to the article? I'm sure Duncan won't be happy, but then I don't think anything I'm involved in will ever satisfy him, as he still seems to hold a grudge over linking the unitaries. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Good work, I think it's ready to go. If we do come up with anything for the districts we can always make the changes in article space. I'm wondering if the civil parish map for Cornwall (File:Cornwall UK mainland parish map (blank).svg) might help the map request?

Should Wolf Rock be included in the table as it is unparished and just the statement in the lead will suffice? Zangar (talk) 08:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh you beaut, where did you find that map! It should help enormously. I can even get part way myself with that! I've included Wolf Rock for two reasons: because the unparished areas (mainly larger towns) are included in the lists for other counties (otherwise you have an enormous hole in the population figures); and because it was listed as an extra parochial area prior to 1974 by Vision of Britain, and therefore is likely to cause confusion for anyone who consults that source (the only other unparished offshore areas so listed are Bull Fort in the East Riding of Yorkshire, which was previously a civil parish in its own right; and Lundy Island in Devon, which is populated). Ordnance Survey Election Maps suggests there may be other unparished offshore islands in Cornwall, particularly in the Isles of Scilly, but until these are itemised somewhere I have ignored them. You will note that the list itself is actually titled List of civil parishes and unparished areas in the sub-heading, to cater for this.

I'll see what I can do with the map to make life a bit easier for any willing cartographer. Skinsmoke (talk) 10:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah good! Nilfanion has been creating a whole load of new maps for the UK. His location maps are here: commons:User:Nilfanion/Maps/Location maps and county-based maps (where I found the civil parishes one) here: commons:User:Nilfanion/Maps/Counties. That might help others in future. That makes sense about Wolf Rock. Zangar (talk) 11:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, the clincher for me on Wolf Rock was that it would be a shame not to include such an excellent image! LOL. Thanks for the nod up on the maps - I'd traced them back through Wikimedia Commons from the Cornwall map and bookmarked them. Shame he's not done the Welsh communities yet, but give him time! Skinsmoke (talk) 11:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It's done. Now just wait for all hell to break loose! Have also moved the discussions from the talk page across. Do you want to move this discussion, similarly? Skinsmoke (talk) 11:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks good there. Was the upgrade done by copy & paste? I'm just wondering if this is the best way of doing it? Considering the problems with the rolling out of the last version. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 11:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes it was. As far as I'm aware it's the recommended method when moving from user space to article space. That way you maintain the action history of the original article (though you lose the action history of the sandbox). I suppose the only other way of doing it would be by merge (which is still copy and paste), but I've never (ever) seen a merge template referring to a merge from user space. That's why I moved the discussion page details over as well, otherwise they would be lost. Mind you, I'm open to be corrected on that! Skinsmoke (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

TUSC token 398ef85d34b73b3ddb660eb474f327e4

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

A little reward

Jolly Janner has given you a proper pasty for completing Born2cycle's challenge on finding standard. Pasties are full of meaty goodness, and are wonderfully delicious! On Wikipedia, they promote love and sincerity. Hopefully, this one has made your day happier.

Hehe, thanks Jolly! That has made my day a happier and tastier one! It's always nice to get presents. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1