User talk:Chrisieboy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Chrisieboy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Davewild 16:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Peterborough local elections

The article Peterborough local elections you nominated as a good article has failed , see Talk:Peterborough local elections for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a review. MrPrada 16:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The article Peterborough local elections you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Peterborough local elections for things needed to be addressed. Mouse Nightshirt | talk 00:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Peterborough FAC

I notice that you have reverted the templated format of the links to the London Gazette that I added, apparently on the grounds of consistency. I don't see why the revert was necessary and query with what the revert was to achieve consistency. Using the template has the benefit of producing a simpler and shorter reference which contains information that can actually be understood in the edit mode rather than a lengthy URL. The template also points to a newer version of the London Gazette online archive which will replace the site referred to in the URL version you restored. --DavidCane 00:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chrisieboy, I am commenting here, because I want to wait on the FAC page for other editors to comment, but there are 2 things I still wanted to comment on:

1. The only way for me to find out ref 69 is a press release is to click on the link. In other words, the link is required for me to retrieve the full information. So the ref should either be expanded with an last accessdate or state that is in fact a press release.
2. Secondly, an anonymous editor is changing your comments: [1]. If it is in fact you, then never mind, but just letting you know. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

drop me a line at my talk and I'll chime in as soon as I can. Prob. tomorrow. --Dweller 19:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. --Dweller 14:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Stick with it. It'll get to FA soon enough. I'll drop Raul a line. --Dweller 07:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chrisieboy, thanks for your comment. I've added a comment to the FAC page and have withdrawn my oppose. Unfortunately, I do not feel confident enough about it that I explicitely support the nomination and to be honest I do not think I am in a position to judge the article neutrally anymore (which is my bad, not yours). If enough other editors agree though, I do not want that my comments stand in the way of promotion. Good luck and I hope you succeed (if not this time, you definately will make it the next). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I asked three FA regulars. The Rambling Man agreed with me, Casliber says he's not too bothered. The third has yet to reply. I'm certainly influenced by Casliber... still making up my mind. What bothers me (as I've said) is my worry that when future editors add stuff, the referenced and non referenced are impossible to detect. --Dweller 17:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

btw if it's Katherine of Aragon, you'll need to specify which Katherine you mean... and reference it. --Dweller 19:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Trust me on this. (Adopts conciliatory tone) - I can see you've put in a load of work and are getting frustrated with the whole FAC thing. There's a few other things I'd do differently but never mind. There is loads of material out there concerning problems with weasel words etc. by PR and advertising people not to mention politicians etc. I haven't the energy to keep explaining/arguing etc. but the other problem was the copyrighted text pasted from elsewhere. In any case I hope you can be happy with how it stands cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah sure. Stick that sentence in, that's good (i.e. mentioning dissenting voices to the development). As long as the original text is not reinserted. Is promoted now so congrats.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on the star. It's a superb article. NB Can I suggest you specify which "Queen Katherine" you mean - there have been lots and lots of Queen Katherines in history. --Dweller 07:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject guidelines

Hello Chrisieboy!

I believe I have found the user who for the most part furthered the Peterborough article towards FA standard! If so, well done - I know it's incredibly difficult to secure this award!

I'm just making a point of contact regarding the WP:UKCITIES guidelines (and they are only guidelines) which were developed through extensive discussion and painstaking peer review to ensure British settlement articles adopt a consistent layout. As Peterborough doesn't fall within a localised "city" or "county" WikiProject, it seems the guidelines have been overlooked.

I'd be happy to apply them to the article for you - it would merely result in a minor reordering and a title change to around two sections; the content would remain untouched. Are you ok with this proposal?? Hope so, -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for the swift reply. I've left a breif note on the Peterborough talk page regarding what I believe should be changed; it really is just four small cosmetic changes. I'm not sure User:David Underdown is entirely sure about them for reasons unclear - has there been a dispute about this?

I could've gone ahead and applied them (a consensus exists to do so), but as you're evidently a strong contributor and the article has just passed FA, I thought I'd extend the opportunity to discuss the changes directly as a matter of courtesy. It is the only FA and GA settlement article which doesn't match the standard layout (forget the content - that's more than fine of course).

Anyway, let me know your thoughts if you can. And once again, congratulations, -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Hi, I reverted your reversion of the pronunciation of Peterborough. As you had it, it contained spurious IPA symbols, and had no link to the IPA key for those who are not familiar with it, which shouldn't happen in a featured article. Perhaps you object to transcribing the second syllable with a rhotic ɚ, but that is the general if not local pronunciation, and Wikipedia pronunciations shouldn't be dialect specific. Of course, we could always specify ə as the local pronunciation, but then people would wonder what was so unusual about it that we needed to specify it, when there isn't anything unusual: RP speakers will automatically pronounce ɚ as ə in that position. Note this isn't pushing rhotic pronunciations on British cities; American city pronunciations contain British vowels, like ɒ in Los Angeles, because that's how people with RP distinctions pronounce them, even if it makes no difference to the locals. kwami (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Peterborough (UK Parliament constituency)

Hello. I am pretty sure that Viscount Milton did not represent this constituency between 1878 and 1889 as he died in 1877. According to Rayment's page it was his younger brother John Wentworth-FitzWilliam who was the MP and that's why I made the changes I made. Regards, Tryde (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that bulleting general references was a legitimate use of AWB. TubularWorld (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Peterborough Cathedral

I'd been living in Peterborugh, and going to the Proms at the RAH for quite some time before it was pointed out to me. I just wish I knew why Peterbrough was chosen particularly. The West Front is particularly distinctive of course. David Underdown (talk) 10:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)