User talk:Road Wizard

This is the talk page for leaving messages for User:Road Wizard.
Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them ==A Descriptive Header==. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions.	Talk page guidelines Please respect etiquette and assume good faith. Also be nice and remain civil.

Note: Unless you have specifically requested otherwise, I will respond here to any messages left on this page.

Hello Road Wizard! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for signing up. Here are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Best of luck. Have fun! --ElectricEye Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help Where to ask a question Help Desk Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Broughton Merge

For what its worth I agree with you and, whatever the community decides after a period of discussion, Mais Oui! was wrong to remove your request without explanation (though in his defence he is a hard working editor who has had to deal with a lot of rubbish on the Traditional counties of the British Isles article and the like). I've reinserted the merge proposals and hopefully a full and frank discussion will occur!

By the way, if you're interested in doing roads in the UK, I've noticed that there are a couple of motorways in Northern Ireland without articles... Robdurbar 22:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

SIs

The main reason that I add SIs without links is that most of them do not merit an article of their own. There are exceptions such as the Environmental Information Regulations 2000, but they are unusual. If you want to add links to particularly noteworthy SIs please feel free. I also add SIs without links so that we don't get red-link finders flagging the pages for having the most red links unnecessarily. Just imagine how they would skew those statistics! Any help on getting the mammoth project of listing all SIs, SRs, SSIs and SR&Os listed would be appreciated. David Newton 15:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You'll find that the external links for SIs were pretty much all put in place by one person. The reason that I don't do that is the sheer amount of work involved. It's tough enough getting several thousand pieces of legislation listed for each year, let alone getting working links to the full text of each of them! One hurdle at a time as they say! David Newton 22:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks!

Many thanks for your sterling work on the Highways Act 1980 must have taken bloody ages! --Mcginnly 21:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, but IIRC, it only took about an hour. I did spend a little time before hand though considering the best way to add useful information to the article without breaching crown copyright. Road Wizard 12:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Buildings and structures in Manchester

Um, I was not aware you needed to discuss whether a category was appropiate. I meant no harm as I have done this before to many other categories and there have been no complaints. I just felt that the Manchester category had a number of articles in it which could be put into a subcategory (Category:Buildings and structures in Manchester). I cannot see how this has caused a problem. If this has caused a problem however then please inform me and also inform me on what action you will, if you do, take. - Erebus555 16:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand. That is one of the downsides to communication via the internet in such way as the tone of voice cannot be heard. My choice of wording for the edit summary was inappropiate, I must agree, however it was not really a plan as how you may seem to be understand it. I was just hoping to downsize the Manchester article and reorganize it. I am sure you are allowed to create a category for Transport in Manchester. - Erebus555 16:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Where do you live?

Roadwizard, do you live in Oldham or close to it? User:88.104.169.48 17:35, 09 April 2006 (UTC)

(This time stamp is incorrect. Comment left by User:88.104.169.48 on 9th May 2006. Please read Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages for advice on leaving an automatic time stamp. Thanks. Road Wizard 18:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC))

• Before I answer that question, can you please tell me why you want to know? Also, it would be useful if you added new topics to the bottom of talk pages in future. This helps other editors to spot page changes more quickly. Thanks. Road Wizard 18:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to know as I was in Oldham yesterday (god forbid) and saw a guy on the 409 bus, Ashton - Rochdale via Oldham, wearing a T-shirt with RoadWizard written on the back and though hmmmm strange. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.104.165.41 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 10 May, 2006 (UTC).

• Well, I can honestly say that I have never caught a No. 409 bus, or worn clothing with the words "Road Wizard" written on them. It wouldn't really help my anonymity very much if I went round proclaiming my identity. :) Road Wizard 17:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ha Okay well good because it would be rather worrying if you walked round in a tee with your "online alias" written on it. Just a case of mistaken identity then. He was a youngish man around 25ish with a very long and very scruffy ponytail (unwashed I might add) it is not as if the cost of shampoo has risen very much recently though to look at some people you would think it had. Anyway enough of my waffling about personal hygiene and the lack of it thanks for answering. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.104.165.41 (talk • contribs).

West Riding

Hi. This Ridings business is quite tricky. It IS (present tense) an historic county, to put it in the past tense implies it no longer is an historic county. It was used as the rough basis of an administrative county council in 1888, several centuries after it was created, which administrative county was abolished in 1974. The stickiness comes with the fact that both the ancient division (present tense) and County Council (past tense) shared the same name, and this article is covering both. In my post on the North Riding of Yorkshire discussion page I write,

Some of the confusions on this article, as in the West and East Riding articles, stem from the fact that the articles are doing two, and in the East's case three, jobs: 1) Covering the ancient divisions - around since Viking times and still used by many, 2) The Victorian created (1889-1974) county council areas, and 3) )in the East Riding's case) the new, active administrative region. They all have the same names, but are different things geographically, historically and intellectually. Short of creating discrete articles, I think it's best to be very clear and not to conflate them. KRC58 22:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this makes the point. I think even a general reader will appreciate that the West Riding IS an historic county. I took time over a re-edit of the article and thought carefully over the tense. I think it was more clear and accurate before, and would respectfully ask that you undo your edit. Many thanks. KRC58

Actually, by definition anything that uses the term "historic" is referring to a subject in the past tense. However, if you are invoking the dreaded Traditional versus Ceremonial county debate then by all means change the page back. From the view point of a general reader, I still think it is a bad idea to phrase the article in the present tense when it describes all of the events as occurring in the past, so I won't change the article myself. After seeing the rampant silliness of the Traditional/Ceremonial/Administrative revert wars over on the Lancashire page, I am not going to let myself be bogged down in a similar war here. Road Wizard 23:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Histroic: 2. esp. Forming an important part or item of history; noted or celebrated in history; having an interest or importance due to connexion with historical events. (The prevailing current sense.)

This is the OED's definition of historic. By definition historic is 'Formng (present continuous tense) an important part ... of histrory'. Grammatically I think this is clear. I equally don't find the traditional/ceremonial counties debate particulary edifying, but the entry for historic counties is in the present tense, so it seems illogical and confusing to make this in the past tense. I shall change it back and copy this exchange to the discussion page (where I should probably have started it!). Regards. KRC58 10:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

NHS hospitals

Hi there,I am watching you roll out your programme, to use NHS-speak. Do you not think that - since of course many Hospital Trusts include more than one hospital - Category:NHS hospitals should itself be a category of Category:NHS Hospital Trusts? It seems to me this would be right. Best regards --Smerus 08:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, but I think discussion of category changes should be kept on the WikiProject page. This will then allow other editors an opportunity to discuss any changes and maintain a record of any arguments for and against change that will be useful later on. I will move your comment to the WikiProject page and respond to you there. Thanks. Road Wizard 11:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Original Research!

I have done so on the talk page. 68.39.174.238 23:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Stub jargon alert

Sorry about all that. Hopefully I won't be adding to your headache if I try to explain further... Because the guidelines recommend not having stub categories with fewer than 60 articles, I was suggesting that if the existing stub type were expanded to cover all UK medical orgs, then the existing NHS-stub should be kept, feeding into that category, as well as the new UK-med-org-stub doing so. (When this happens after the fact to an existing stub type, it's generally called "upmerging".) Alai 01:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

To put it simply, stub categories need a reasonable population to be useful to editors (WP:WSS uses a threshold of 60-65 stubs as a minimum for a new category). Each stub category has a dedicated template - sometimes (rarely) two or more dedicated templates. There may not be enough UK-med-org stubs for their own category, but there would be nothing wrong with having both them and the NHS stubs going into one category with a more all-inclusive name. Hope that makes more sense! :) Grutness...wha? 01:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both for trying to explain it to me, however I have decided just to let the knowledge sink into me over time. I think I will limit my activity with stubs to placing the templates on articles and avoid commenting on them again until I have a better understanding of the technicalities behind them. It is a bit disconcerting when you try to say "The sky is blue," but someone points out you actually said "The sky is green." Anyway, thanks for the info. :) Road Wizard 17:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

NHS Logo

Howdy! Thanks for the heads-up on the use of the logo in the stub template and infobox. I've replaced it in the former, and removed it from the latter (though I made sure all inclusions of it now have a free use image of the hospital in its place at the top.) Happy editing! GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 19:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Bale/bail

Thanks for pointing it out, Road Wizard. Perhaps I was wrong in seeking to remove all the meanings of bail from the bale disambig, since it turns out both spellings may be used in many cases. On the other hand, people should be using wiktionary from this kind of fine-grained disambiguation I guess -- so perhaps we should just add the wiktionarypar links and not put in any meanings for words like these unless there will actually be an encyclopaedia article about it. Please do update the bail and bale disambig pages as you see fit. I promise not to tread on any toes this time -- just was concerned that we were propagating misspellings in wikipedia :) Cheers — Donama 01:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Having looked at the disambig pages, I think you are right that some of the information should really be in Wiktionary. I'll make sure the Wiktionary contains the data then replace the definitions with the appropriate links. Road Wizard 07:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Chew Valley

Hi, Thanks for doing the redirects etc for Chew Valley in Somerset on which I've done a lot of work. I've just come accross a web version of a Navvy's description of building the dam at Chew Valley but it's the Manchester one not the Somerset one - I've added a link on the Chew Valley, Manchester page - but you might want to move it to Chew Reservoir, Manchester. Rod 21:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I'll take a look at it tonight. Road Wizard 07:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Greater Manchester stations template

See reply. Simply south 19:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Another template

Actually, before i put it up, could i have your view on Template:West Midlands main railway stations, or should i move this to "Major railway stations"? Simply south 13:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Rugger vs Soccer

It's wrong to say that Rugby's rules were codified before Soccer's. A standardised code was first esatblished in 1863, where the rugby favourers split from what became The Football Association. It wasn't until 1871 that a standardised Rugby rulebook was created. Until each of these dates, clubs and schools tended to use their own versions of the rules, including Rugby school, whose own rules were, as we know, codified much earlier. They shouldn't be confused with the 'Rugger' rules.
 SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  23:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If you re-read my comment, I gave the dates that the articles give for the first codifying of the rules for the two sports. I did not specify that the rules as first written are the ones still in use today. As my intent was to give a brief overview and to link to the relevant articles so that others can read the specifics in more detail, I really don't see much of a problem. Road Wizard 07:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

Hi,

I'm adding content to this article. I'm writing an essay for my multimedia degree so I thought I may as well add content here as I learn it. Anyway, now there is a bit of content what do you think about a summary of the act in a table, rather than the very generic one you put there.

What do you think?

Regards,

Oliver Naturalhomes 23:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think we can do without the British legislation template as it aids the navigation of users through the vast number of British legislation articles. However, there is nothing to stop you creating a table to fit in another part of the page (such as along the bottom). Or, alternatively, you could place a table either above or below the existing template. Road Wizard 20:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

NHS stubs

Hi Roadwizard, please enlarge your comments. Where do recategorization and deletion come in to the matter? apologies for my ingenuousness ---Smerus 07:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• OK I get the picture - I have made an entry here and hope it will do the trick--Smerus 07:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi there! After a lot of rattling sround, my attempt to validate the use of {{NHS-stubs}} and reclaim Category:NHS stubs from the name 'UK medical organisation stubs' (given to it when hardly anyone was looking' has now reached the subs proposal list, here. One contributor has suggested it ought to be named Category:National Health Service stubs, which is fine by me. If you are in favour of either version, which would give us a clear 'dedicated' list of stubs which the WikiProject could attack, please go to the proposal article and vote accordingly. All best regards - --Smerus 04:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but I can't help you with the discussion. I have seen many similar debates in the past become skewed because a proposer or opposer has invited a group of like minded individuals to take part. This often causes the debate to become polarised between factions rather than an open forum where all sides are listening and taking on board points raised by the others. I promised myself that I wouldn't get drawn into a similar situation, so even though I think a separate category may be a good idea, I will not be voicing my support. Sorry again. Road Wizard 13:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you very much for fixing my userpage. Reywas92 21:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Templates again: City\Town centre

Also see Template talk:Merseyside major railway stations

I have created templates on Liverpool city centre stations, Birmingham city centre stations and now Template:Manchester city centre stations. Hopefully this is less controversial than the previous series. I have replaced the Birmingham and Manchester (or will do for Manchester momentarily) templates, at least at the relevant stations. I was wondering if i could have your opinion on them. Simply south 18:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• I have responded at Template talk:Merseyside major railway stations.

Linkage in Sakura Wars/ Taisen Characters

Hey there. This is Andrew here. A few days ago, you've remove the character links. Didn't I post a notice there first before you can remove it.

It redirects to the same area cuz' it's not complete or havn't started. If you can help me add more details, go to the linkage (e.g. Erica Fontaine) then you'll notice redirect from something. Click on the Erica Fontaince on Redirect from Erica Fontaine and it'll go to where you can edit it.)

Make sure you've written something in the discussion page first before doing anything.

Andrewwong36 16:38, 14 June 2006 (+8)

No you didn't say not to delete it. To quote, your notice said;

(Notice: If you notice the red link at each character, please don't delete it. Just go to the discussion here for more details)

The links were not red links but blue links that redirect back to the same page. I decided to check the talk page to see if there was some reason for this, but the only post there was;

Okay! For those who already notice, I intend to put some of the important and main characters due to the popularity. So if any anime fans or controbutors of Sakura Wars want to contribute, please do so. Yet I might intend to put some pictures of the Kagekidan members. So please do not erased the notice just yet until it's done.

Therefore, with no explanation provided for why circular redirects were included in the article, I removed them. As circular redirects are generally not appropriate for articles, the emphasis is on you to explain why you want to retain them, not on other editors to check back through the edit history to find you inserted them and then ask your permission to remove them. If you wish to avoid another editor removing them again in the future, you should really update the talk page to explain what you are doing. Also, I would ask that in future you assume good faith and avoid antagonising your fellow editors with poorly considered accusations.

Now, in an attempt to put this unpleasantness behind us and move on, I notice that in your post on the talk page you have asked for help. I am somewhat familiar with the subject and if you let me know what you want to do, I will try and lend a hand. Road Wizard 17:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Okay! I understand what you've mean. But I'll try to keep that in mind.

2. About the help part, I need to get more informations about the Kagekidan for the personal character page. (which is linked). CUz' I'm a bit busy here.

Andrewwong36 08:39, 15 June 2006 (+8)

Spaces in cat order

This is done very deliberately in order to sort all the Series shows ahead of the individual characters. - TexasAndroid 18:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I mean to sort all the Lists by series ahead of individual characters. - TexasAndroid 18:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Then you should place them in a new subcategory. Placing articles out of order only causes confusion. Road Wizard 19:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please look at the Manga/Anime characters cat. There is little to be confused about there. The Series pages are all nicely alphabetized by series at the start, with the much larger set of individual character pages falling afterwards. The only confusion is the pages that you have reverted, which are mixed in with the pages for characters, not the pages for the series.

As for a sub-cat, that might work, but the right name for such would be critical. I'll think about the possibilities, though any ideas from you would also be useful. - TexasAndroid 19:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but both situations are somewhat confusing. If I am looking for the article Urusei Yatsura characters I would expect to see it under U for Urusei. Instead, it is now listed before A. As a suggestion for a sub-category name, perhaps Category:Manga and anime characters by series. This would also allow the tidying up of the main Category:Manga and anime characters as most of the existing sub-categories would become child categories of the new one. Road Wizard 19:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I was trying to come up with things like "Lists of Manga and anime characters" or "Sets of Manga and anime characters", none of which sounded quite right. Including all the "by series" categories in the new cat works quite well. Most of the subcats of Category:Manga and anime characters move down to Category:Manga and anime characters by series, which is itself a sub of Category:Manga and anime characters. All the series lists move down as well. And we're left with a few non-series specific cats like Category:Magical girls, the new cat, and the individual character pages. Works out fairly well. I'll go ahead and build out the new cat itself, and we can slowly start moving the subcats/pages down. Need to remember to remove the spaces in the ordering of all the series specific articles. Sounds like a plan. - TexasAndroid 19:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want, I'll edit the sub-categories while you edit the articles. If I make mass changes to your recent article edits the other editors might think we have started a revert war. :) Road Wizard 19:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm already well on the way with the sub-cats, but if you want to take over... Leave the ones like Fruits Basket and Pita-ten that are not specifically Characters cats. Those need to be looked at specifically. I've not looked at them yet, but if they have enough in them, I'm inclined to split off Character cats from the main cats for those series. But that'll have to be case by case. Anyway, I'll switch to articles. - TexasAndroid 19:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Much better, overall. I went ahead and moved the three odd-ball series categories down. I'm seriously thinking of submitting the DigiDestined category for rename to much more simply "Digimon characters". The other two contain almost all characters. Splitting out a separate "Fruits Basket characters" category would leave very little left in the original category. Not really worth it at this point, IMHO. - TexasAndroid 20:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

One suggestion. Would it be better to pipe Category:Manga and anime characters by series to be at the top of the Category:Manga and anime characters sub-categories rather than in the middle? Road Wizard 20:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. :) - TexasAndroid 20:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I asked aquestion about disambiguation yesterday. Thanks for your help. It was simple and to the point. no need to reply.

Colin Choat

Collywolly 10:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Categories for Deletion

Oh! I'm sorry. I was looking at the results of the discussion on June 3 and I thought that the discussion was over. I also tried clicking on the discussion link that it provided but it just linked to the top of the Categories for Deletion pages (which usually only happens when the #link is removed) instead of the discussion. Should I revert them? Axem Titanium 23:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Civil partnerships: D'oh!

Um, I plead dyslexia, or something. I really thought when I was looking at the diff that stats for a period ending in March had been replaced with stats for a period ending in January. In fact the opposite is true. I have no idea how I made the error. Mea culpa! Please revert back if you haven't already ... --Jfruh (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)