User talk:J3Mrs/Archive 16

Dovestone Reservoir

		The Citation Barnstar
		Cheers for the revert. In my book a more helpful edit for an experienced Wikipedian such as yourself to make would be to fix the citation (grab one from the linked page maybe), but obviously YMMV. HAND -- Will-is-here (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I did. J3Mrs (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Well hush my mouth. I didn't look, just assumed you'd reverted. Sincere apologies! -- Will-is-here (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

No problem. J3Mrs (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cowal, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Arrochar and Kames. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Wilderwood

I see you have some interest in mine workings including Wilderwood Colliery, yet no article, you have mentioned a source in the Rivington article, here is another, maybe you could write one. To quote "Wilderwood Colliery, Horwich, near Bolton was worked over a large area by various concerns front the late eighteenth century to 16 August 1960. A large number of shallow shafts and adits accessed two seams, the Little Mine and the Great Mine. Rowland Adamson (RA) signed its abandonment plan on closure." (Coal Mining in Lancashire & Cheshire, By Alan Davies, 2013, 32)

Also http://www.daveweb.co.uk/wilders1.html

--Pennine rambler (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Small Edit

You left a stray < on the Horwich article, near citation 46, also on the Rivington Church you have a citation error, "Check date values in: |access-date=" citation 12.

--Pennine rambler (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Did you bother to fix it? This seems like pedantry, sorry. If it isn't fixed now then I will do it. - Sitush (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I was trying to reach out to this user in a polite way, --Pennine rambler (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

OTOH, Pennine rambler, you seem to have introduced a source cited as Kay (1966) in this edit but it is still throwing up an error because the Kay work is not in fact named. Perhaps it was at some earlier time, was removed and then you reinstated it. Whatever, you broke the cite. I would usually just keep digging through the history until I found it but on this occasion you have really narked me. Please resolve it. - Sitush (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Pennine rambler your suggestions are not welcome on my page. As User:Sitush says fix it yourself, as I have done with your recent tagging at Rivington, where to be honest you make yourself look somewhat silly. You have nothing of interest to say to me so do not come here again or I shall consider it harassment. J3Mrs (talk) 07:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

J3Mrs I did not edit the article so as not to annoy you, seem to get very upset over any small edit I undertake and considered it best to advise you of those instead in good faith and politely, end of conversation. --Pennine rambler (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Listed buildings

Hello - a long time since we were in touch. I thought that I would let you know that, having completed lists for all the parishes and unparished areas of listed buildings in Cheshire, Merseyside, Lancashire, and Cumbria, I am now planning to tread into Greater Manchester (you can see the lists I have already completed on my user page). I do not want to step on the toes of anyone in GM (especially yourself) and thought it would be courteous to inform you of my intention. So far as I can determine, you have created lists for Astley, and Tyldesley. Have you created any others? I do not want to interfere with the work of other editors, nor do I want to duplicate work already done. I have created a sort of "skeleton" list at Listed buildings in Greater Manchester to be completed (by me, or anyone else). Have I missed anything? Do you have any comments? With very best wishes, --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

It's good to hear from you Peter, I hope all is well with you. I am around, but not as much these days. I have indeed created those lists, based as I remember, on the one you helped me do for Rivington. I haven't done any others and anything you do to anything I've done most certainly isn't interference. I really wish I had your tenacity at keeping going but I'm too distracted with other, mainly good, things these days. I hadn't realised just how much you have done, that is one heck of a feat. One day I will finish some of the things I've started - but at the moment I'm doing more outdoor things. Look forward to bumping into you more often. J3Mrs (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. I've started - with Listed buildings in Blackrod. Cheers, --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Confused...much

Sorry, what were you adding whilst not logged in? did you add the "See also" stuff, or did you revert the ip? Your comment, incidentally, has now disappeared from the ip's talk page. Gremlins are afoot, me thinks... Cassianto^Talk 20:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I apologised for [1], I won't bother in future. J3Mrs (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Understood. No, I wouldn't bother either. It seems the IP is not in the least bit interested to engage in a collaborative or friendly manner. Hope you're well. Cassianto^Talk 22:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I switched off and have been away, sorry I didn't reply sooner. I am very well but not the best in this heat! Have given my opinion, but there are far too trivamongers editing the encyclopedia,. J3Mrs (talk) 09:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

John Dalton

I note you have been doing some substantial (and commendable) tidying of John Dalton. One alteration that I would question, though, is the movement of the mention of Dalton being an early authority on the heights of mountains in the Lake District. This now appears under Meteorology. Whilst his knowledge of the heights of the various fells is a result of his interest in weather, appearing in this section camouflages a fact about his influence on Geography. This was important as his work was contemporary with the realisation that Scafell Pike was England's highest mountain. As with so many scientific discoveries, it took multiple measurements by different people for this to become an accepted fact. (Dalton would not have known the mountain by this name, as it only acquired a name of its own once recognised as England's highest.)

Putting this fact separately from the Meterology section would further demonstrate the wide range of influence of Dalton's work - even in an era when being a polymath was somewhat easier, it is one of the notable aspects of him.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I copyedited the article because it was so badly expressed. I merged the two paragraphs mainly because the rather odd title seemed out of place. Your explanation is clearer and would improve the article (with references) but it needs a better header. J3Mrs (talk) 15:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Noted - I or someone else can have a go at sorting this out. I will have to hunt down the references as they appear to have become dislocated from the facts that they support. Additionally, I am aware of a better reference now for these facts, but would need to re-read the relevant parts.

It is unfortunate that so many of Dalton's own papers were lost, otherwise it would be a much easier subject to tackle (i.e. it would be easier for people to write about his life, so providing a range of sources). Much material about him exists in information in which a third party is the main subject.

But I might not be looking at this for a while, as the real world is making some substantial demands on my time.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the article suffers from having multiple editors and a copyedit is a good thing. That it showed up things to improve is not a bad thing. My time too is limited at the moment but I will look up his entry in the ODNB when I have more time. J3Mrs (talk) 09:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The ODNB article doesn't agree in one or two areas but I think it is a better reference than some. I will need to do a bit odf rewriting which will take me a bit longer but I will get to it. J3Mrs (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Peak District page and categories.

Hi J3Mrs, after our brief discussion in my talk page yesterday over this issue, I would like you to know that I have just raised the misleading issue about the pages in the Peak District categories, and some of the information in the main Peak District page, within the talk pages of the main Peak District article and the main Peak District categories. The reason why Ive left a message in the main Peak District article and the main Peak District categories is because I'm not a regular editor and I don't want to revert more pages without further discussion in case I get further backlash from other Wikipedia users over this issue (like I mentioned in my talk page). Thank you for your kind messages in my talk page about this issue yesterday. Broman178 (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Shuttle Eye Colliery

Is a distant photo that at least shows the area not better than nothing here? --Gapfall (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Frankly no it isn't. J3Mrs (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Gapfall (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Peak District in Manchester article

Hi J3Mrs, sorry to leave another message in your talk page but I would really like to know whether there is another way the Peak District National Park could be mentioned inside the Manchester article. Personally I think it should be included in some way (obviously with a stronger reference) as excluding the National Park from the Manchester page is a bit absurd to me considering Manchester's close proximity to it, being one of the closest cities to the National Park, and the fact that the city has partially contributed to the National Parks popularity. The other cities in close proximity to the National Park - Sheffield, Stoke-on-Trent and Derby - have all got at least one mention of the National Park in their articles so I don't fully understand why Manchester shouldn't have at least one mention of it in its article. I thought I'd ask you because you are obviously a more experienced Wikipedia editor than I am (since I don't edit regularly) and I don't want to risk making another mistake in the Manchester page or come to another editing conflict with you on that page over this issue. Could you please let me know whether you think it could still be included in a different part of the geography section apart from the opening paragraph, a different section in that article (e.g. history, tourism etc) or do you believe it shouldn't be included at all in the article and your reasoning behind it (as I already understand your edits in the Peak District page and its categories). I'll be very grateful if you can answer this query of mine, thank you. Broman178 (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

No I don't. The Manchester article is about Manchester not the Peak District or anything else that happens to be close by. Just because Manchester might be mentioned in the Peak District article doesn't mean it should be mentioned in the Manchester article. J3Mrs (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Although I still don't agree with this (especially as the article gives mention to the Pennines and Cheshire Plain even though they don't extend to the city itself), I nevertheless respect your view and won't attempt to give mention of the National Park within that article again. Broman178 (talk) 07:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Precious three years!

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks but I'm not sure what the point of this is, I haven't joined this project and haven't contributed much recently. J3Mrs (talk) 16:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Lit & Phil

This is potentially a quite useful resource. - Sitush (talk) 12:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree, interesting find. J3Mrs (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Editing conflicts

Hi J3Mrs, I just thought I'd leave this polite message for you because many of my edits as of late seem to be coming into conflict with your edits and your views. I've noticed you've undone many of my edits recently, now I can understand your reversions regarding the Peak District and its categories (even Manchester) but the edit which you've just reverted in the Pennines, wasn't really that necessary because you could have just removed the whole "Character areas" section if you believed it was that meaningless, rather than undo my edit (I believed the NCAs could also be given mention in the Pennines if they were mentioned in the Peak District) and then cut the whole section afterwards, especially as it was a section which has remained in that article for years. I know your edits are for the good of Wikipedia but it sometimes gives me the impression that some of my edits are constantly being watched by you, especially for this instance in the Pennines (I have recently cut a lot of information and some misleading images from that article in order to make it more consistent). I can understand if you disagree with some of the edits I make (I only really thought it was for the best at those times) but if its a section which you term completely meaningless, please for goodness sake do not undo my edit before removing the whole section, you can just remove it completely without reverting my edit because that can still send the same message out, and I would also suggest that you undo my edits and other users edits only if they breach some of Wikipedia's policies and if they involve vandalism or is worded excessively, if its a good faith edit (which is the case for most of my edits) and as long as the edit is just minor, you can just remove those edits or information without directly undoing them, or just leave a message in my talk page about it, especially if it is information supported by references. Thank you and good day to you. Broman178 (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

And I will leave you this polite message, mention of the NCAs is meaningless without context and explanation. They mean nothing to the average reader. You will find I have made [edits] to the article and like the Peak District, it was on my watchlist long before you edited it so do not assume I am following your edits, quite the opposite. You could use the NCA documents as references when describing the types of landscape but please don't use them just to construct meaningless lists. J3Mrs (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind reply, I can now understand your reasoning behind this but like I said this section was in the Pennines article for years added by other users and relied on that outdated, misleading image which I earlier removed. So in a way I am surprised you didn't remove that section earlier, however, I can now say that our changes have made the article a bit more consistent now than before. I have looked at some of your earlier edits on this page and I partially acted on this issue by removing that image and a few NCAs which don't directly belong to the Pennines (Forest of Bowland, Howgill Fells etc) before you made the changes now, and I also replied to your 2013 query in the Pennines talk page after I made those changes. I will look at the article again a bit later and see whether I can use some of the NCAs in the geography section to describe the landscape further, although if it is possible, I will try to make sure it is not excessively detailed, as I have just removed some excess detail from it. Also, its not my intention to accuse you of monitoring my edits, but the fact that many of my edits have been changed by you (for good reasons) does sometimes give that impression even though like you've said, its just a watchlist. And finally, please do take what I have said to some consideration to reduce further editing conflicts with me, because all my edits are usually out of good faith and not malicious intent, and what matters is what the references confirm for the information over our views/perceptions (e.g. I may not view the Bowland Fells as part of the Pennines but other sources consider it within the range) along with Wikipedia's policies. Broman178 (talk) 14:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The Forest of Bowland is part of the Pennines. You are starting to add WP:POV or WP:OR. Please revert your recent unhelpful edits on Manchester before I do. J3Mrs (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Could you please explain what is unhelpful about my recent edits in Manchester, I only added a comma in the lead as there are too many "ands" in that sentence, simplified one sentence to only include Pennines because the Rossendale Forest is part of the Pennines (along with correcting some punctuation as there was an error in "snow. notably the A62 road via Oldham and Standedge," with a full stop between snow and notably), and I'm a bit doubtful whether the M62 motorway should be mentioned without a reference to support it because closures in that motorway across the Pennines are rarer in comparision to say the Snake Pass. If you feel that way then I suggest you revert them yourself, I'll let you off for this. Also if the Bowland Fells are part of the Pennines, why hasn't it been given mention in the main article and why does Mountains and hills of England say "Although it is near the Yorkshire Dales and the South Pennines, it does not belong to either"? Its like my similar perception with Marsden, because I consider Marsden to be part of both Peak District and South Pennines (as its narrowly between Dark peak and South pennine NCAs) even though you don't consider Marsden part of the Peak District. If you consider Bowland to be part of it, you could also make the neccesary changes in both Pennines and Forest of Bowland articles when you are free as I'm not a regular editor and may have all the time to do it myself. Broman178 (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Don't add tags to Featured articles, find your own references. Try reading something other than Wikipedia because it is not a reliable source. What you consider to be true is not a reliable source either and ttop writing walls of text on this page. J3Mrs (talk) 18:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I'll make sure I do that in future (although I already have looked at other sources apart from Wikipedia) because I've had enough of this debate and have no further wish to discuss it with you, farewell. Broman178 (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Salford Quays lift bridge

Hi. I notice that back in 2012 you modified the article Salford Quays lift bridge to say it linked Salford Quays to MediaCityUK. I think that both these places are on the north side of the Manchester Ship Canal, and therefore are not obviously linked by this bridge. More at Talk:Salford Quays lift bridge#Links Salford Quays to MediaCityUK?. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 13:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia can be edited by anybody. You could have quite easily changed it yourself. J3Mrs (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I could indeed. But first I need to know if I'm correct in my assumption, hence my question at Talk:Salford Quays lift bridge#Links Salford Quays to MediaCityUK?. As you made the change, I thought it courteous to make you aware that I was asking it. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 19:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I made a mistake, no big deal but I just love it when someone points it out not only on my talk page but on the article talk page as well. You only needed to look at the map and, as I said, have changed it. J3Mrs (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Re. William Lever - Please don't change details of substance without citing sources. By all means have a go at grammar, but please don't get all red-penary. 2.98.53.21 (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)2.98.53.21

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Shaw and Crompton

See WP:NOTBROKEN, its possible that Crompton may one day have a separate article anyway, but even still there's noting wrong with linking through the redirect. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I have asked a question on your talk page. It seems rather pointless when there is a perfectly good link to an existing article rather than linking to a redirect. J3Mrs (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Pen Dwr

Why do I need a reference for Pen Dwr? I live in Wales. I speak Welsh. Use "Google translate" if you like! Pen means head or crest (as, of a hill) or top (as, of a hill), and Dwr means water (as in the company Dwr Cymru, Welsh Water). Please put my edit back in! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynecawla (talk • contribs) 08:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are referring to but as a general rule whatever you add needs references whether you live in Wales or on the moon. I'm not going to translate anything, that 's why it needs a reference. J3Mrs (talk) 08:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Noswaith dda, J3Mrs. Ynecawla is right, as it happens, but it shouldn't be difficult to source. Pen in the hill sense gives rise to some odd namings, eg: Torpenhow Hill, where tor, pen, how and hill have at times been taken all to mean, you got it, hill, thus it is hillhillhill hill. I think Pendle Hill has a somewhat similar claim to tautologous fame. - Sitush (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I knew that :) it's just that I don't care for being told what to do when there is no indication of where or when I did it. J3Mrs (talk) 11:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I understood that bit :) I've been digging around the family tree again recently and have had to delve back into 19C Welsh newspapers etc, which only serves to remind me why I left that particular branch. I recently received a copy marriage certificate where the groom's surname is spelled Prytherch in the top bit (with age, address, occupation, father etc) but is spelled Prydderch (dd being phonetically th) where the signature goes. And although neither groom nor bride indicate that they are illiterate, the entire certificate is completed in the same hand, including the signatures! So, whoever did fill it in couldn't even be consistent across something as simplistic as that document. They'd have no chance here. - Sitush (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I've hit walls with my tree but I've not got any Welsh roots. I've found all sorts of snippets in the old newspapers from sporting achievements, pit deaths, driving a cart without due attention and a drowning or two. While searching a Welsh branch for an internet cousin, I discovered the occupation "Prostitute" in the census - not one of mine!! I'd rather read old newspapers than edit Wikipedia these days. J3Mrs (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Old news is always better than news news. I've got a drowning, too, and Sam Johnson (footballer, born 1901) is one of mine, as was the pub bowling green where Newton Heath FC trained on occasion. Slave owners, too (and they were missionaries, originally from Magdeberg!) Great fun: I could do it as a job if anyone would have me. - Sitush (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I do research for friends, nobody pays much the pity but I have been taken out for lunch. Bet you don't have a dealer in tripe, it's obviously in the genes. It was after researching a family friend that I stated the List of mining disasters in Lancashire but that left me feeling miserable. J3Mrs (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Ha! No tripe dealers, alas - there used to be dozens of tripe shops in northern towns, didn't there? I do have a lot of publicans, which is definitely in the genes. Some months ago there was a bit of a chat about genealogy stuff on my talk page, being fallout from someone trying to use freebmd etc as a source for rugby league players' life events. In that, Boing! said Zebedee mentioned having a relative called Euphemia Smellie and, like him, that is right up there as one of my favourite names. - Sitush (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Tripe was a staple of the working classes and they sold all sorts of other revolting things, cowheels, chitterlings and trotters among them. They did well enough out of it, bought each of their eleven surviving children a house when they married. No Smellies but several odd names. J3Mrs (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I've had tripe and also trotters. The first was, erm, edible. I'm reminded of the money my g-grandfather must have made on the side while running his pub in Hulme. I have here a ledger from ca 1899-1900 that shows loans to people, mostly local but not all. Full names/addresses, weekly payments etc. It probably has a significant genealogical value to quite a few families due to being able to locate them between census years but the entry I like best is that on page 9, which details a loan to Mrs Kelly. Mrs Kelly was his wife. If I tried something like that on, I'd get into a lot of trouble. - Sitush (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

My great, great grandfather had a pub called the Four Horse Shoes in Hulme. He was also a "cowkeeper". J3Mrs (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The H3 template

Why have you made edits like this? You have provided no parameters to the {{h3}} templates, and there are already subheadings there - it seems very odd to add an empty subheading immediately before those. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

What has the presence or absence of parameters got to do with the price of peas? Many templates have default values for parameters that are unspecified by the caller, such as {{refbegin}} to take just one rather similar example. Do you not notice any difference in the versions with and without the {{h3}} template? Eric Corbett 14:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

It's no use asking me about anything technical so I am grateful that Eric Corbett replied to your question. I rather like it. J3Mrs (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm puzzled; if you don't understand a template, why are you using it? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Seems rather too easy to puzzle you Redrose64. What on earth are you on? Or are you perhaps here just to foment trouble? I suspect the latter, so best you toddle off now. Eric Corbett 20:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't aware you had be able to understand anything to edit here. I didn't think using a template was much different from signing a message or adding a citation or using sfn. It doesn't help me research or write sentences but works to get the output I wanted. I saw it in use on articles I watch, so I asked, thought about it and tried it. If I had to understand the workings of Wikipedia I would never have got started. I'm the proof that you don't need any technical knowledge, just the ability to copy what works. J3Mrs (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Me, too! I thought templates were there to help people like me. I don't understand the templates I use; if they work, I just use them.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The other big thing about templates is that a change in one place (the template) causes an equivalent change everywhere that template is used. It can save a lot of maintenance time in the long run. So you get consistency, ease of maintenance and, often, a much-reduced need for repetitive technical coding/formatting. But I am sure there are some utterly pointless templates out there, and some that have a point but are used pointlessly on occasion.- Sitush (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Peter I. Vardy: But help you to do what, exactly? The template's doc says "otherwise specified by using three equal signs at the start of a new line" which implies that when used in the form {{h3|Citations}} it generates a level 3 heading, and the examples reinforce that suggestion. But the Wikimarkup ===Citations=== does that anyway, and that is also present in the edit that I linked, so why use {{h3}} in addition? Seems pointless, as noted by Sitush. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

It is better than using a semi-colon, as the docs suggest, but I am struggling to see how it helps otherwise. I thought the way round the semi-colon was simply to bold the line in quote with a wrapper of '''. I must admit to being loathe to seeing more templates being used to replace very basic markup unless there appears to be a definite benefit - it makes life harder by introducing another layer of mysterious formatting code etc. - Sitush (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The difference is very simple: a level 3 heading produced by the template, as in {{hr|Notes}} for instance, doesn't have the usual edit button, which is useful for sections such as Notes which are invariably empty and hence have nothing to edit. As for the alternative of simply bolding the line, there are those who argue that using bold headings for anything other than very short articles is contrary to the guidance given in the MoS, which suggests that level 3 headings ought to be used, and that therefore such articles ought not to be allowed to become FAs as they do not comply with the MoS. Eric Corbett 00:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

So why do we need an edit button for something that usually has nothing to edit aside from {{reflist}} and {{notelist}}, presumably? I remember you introducing me to the bolding thing, and I don't recall anyone objecting when I took my couple of FAs through the process, but I do accept that things move on. I am not against the template per se but I'm still not really sensing a use for it. I'm just thinking that it appears to be overkill. I might have a play with it in my sandbox tomorrow to see if that makes things any more clear to me. - Sitush (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

We don't, and the {{h3}} template doesn't produce an edit button, full stop. But {{h3}} on its own alters the displayed style of the following h3 heading to match what you'd get with '''Heading'', plus some other options. So as far as I'm concerned, if you use bold then you're just storing up an argument on every article with those who claim that it's not MoS compliant. BTW, {{reflist}} always has content if you're using list defined references, which I think more people should (but that's another story), hence the convenience of the edit button that simply using bold doesn't give you. Eric Corbett 00:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I was talking about the use of templates in general. I haven't used {{h3}} yet, but I think I shall. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I shall continue to use it too, I like the way the section looks. Sometimes though I wish I wasn't curious enough to ask. I notice Eric has mentioned something else in his last reply that I don't do but for now I am retreating into ignorance. At least I haven't broken anything. Apart from that it's always good to see you around. J3Mrs (talk) 11:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't using bold, or even a semicolon. I was removing {{h3}} and leaving the existing ===Citations=== in place, which btw, did have section edit links when the {{h3}} was still present. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I know but I prefer the smaller font produced by the template rather than the large font produced by the level 3 header. J3Mrs (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Have you succeeded in suppressing the edit button while still using level 3 headers, without using the {{h3}} template? Eric Corbett 13:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

... and now the penny drops here. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, just an untemplated <h3> {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Why would I even want to suppress the edit button? ClemRutter has done that at Southwell Minster School, but what if somebody wants to add a further source - or amend the columnisation of the {{reflist}}? They shouldn't be forced to edit more of the page than is absolutely necessary. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be reading off a different page Redrose64. The reason why you might want to suppress the edit button is for sections that are invariably empty, Notes being a good example. And if anyone wants to add a source or amend the number of columns for {{reflist}} then they just do so exactly as they do now, nothing has changed for them. But I'm tiring of this "discussion", as you seem to be obdurately refusing to understand anything I've said. So I'll simply say that if you're quite happy with the rather agricultural look of not using {{h3}} then nobody's forcing you to use it. Eric Corbett 00:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't used {{h3}}- but I have now. Are there any special conventions for using the {{h4}}, {{h5}}, and {{h6}}-- and what does {{h2}} do? ClemRutter (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC) with a smile.

@ClemRutter: You seem to have used it with a parameter - but my question concerns usage without parameters. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

How many times do you need that explained to you? Eric Corbett 00:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• In an attempt to make things appear simpler, hopefully even to Redrose64, I've set up a redirect called {{h3format}}, which can optionally be used to make it more transparent to editors what {{h3}} actually does when called without a header being specified, which by default is to reduce the font size. To achieve the same effect with <h3>Heading</h3>, which appears to be Pppery's preferred option, would require additional HTML along the lines of <h3><span style="font-size:77%;"><br />===Heading===</h3>. So as I said, you pay your money and you takes your choice. Nobody's being forced to use{{h3}}, so if for whatever reason you don't like it, then don't use it. Eric Corbett 01:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I think even I understand that some editors like the template, but some don't. It gives the output I prefer, ie a smaller font so I will use it. As Eric said, it's not compulsory. I can't see this going anywhere so I think we shall call it a day. Thanks for all your contributions. J3Mrs (talk) 10:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Kenyon and Leigh Junction Railway

Hi, I note you've just started an article about this railway. I have been researching the same subject and I have put a copy of it on my talk page, please see User talk:Colinlangdon

I don't want to undo the work you have done but you'll see that it'll be difficult to integrate the two articles as they use two different methods of citation. I'm planning to edit my version by adding in the work you've done but referencing it in accordance with how I have constructed my version.

Would you be happy with this?

Regards Colin Langdon 17:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colinlangdon (talk • contribs)

No I wouldn't be happy with that at all. I spent a lot of time fixing the referencing at Leigh railway station and don't want to do that again. The referencing I use is not difficult to copy. If you use books the bibliography makes it easy to add page numbers using the sfn template I use. J3Mrs (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Colinlangdon, you really should use your sandbox for drafting articles, not your talk page. That will really confuse people. - Sitush (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Colinlangdon: The {{rp}} template is horrid, {{sfn}} is much nicer. See WP:CITESHORT and Shortened footnotes for the main instructions. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Or just copy what's there. J3Mrs (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Redrose64: The {{rp}} and {{sfn}} templates fulfil quite different functions, as you ought to know, and neither is "horrid". Eric Corbett 01:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Moors Murders

I knew I'd waste my time. I could add at least three other references supporting what I added regarding the strangulation being a contributing factor to the victim's death. If you read the 'next section' you'll see it states: "Smith entered the living room to find Brady repeatedly striking Evans with the flat of an axe, and watched as he then throttled Evans with a length of electrical cord". So, then, is it not both contradictory to state in the previous section that "Brady beat him to death with an axe"? Is the strangling a mythical figment of editors' imaginations? Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes it's a pity you wasted your time. There's no point in repeating information that is already there, refs or not. Evans' murder has a whole section, it follows the sentence you altered, it is in the table of contents. The art of writing, like painting, is knowing when to stop. Regards J3Mrs (talk) 10:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah well if you give information, to my mind, it should be included (even briefly), in the first instance of mention. This regardless of whether there's a whole section devoted to it. Not least when it now chronologically delivers incorrect information to the reader. I suppose you could say the canvas is now stained.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

"This is dealt with in the next section, read the header." Well, the next section states he was strangled after being bludgeoned. It's also on his autopsy report if memory serves me right. If someone is fatally stabbed before being drowned, you don't say he/she was killed by drowning before stating in well into the next chapter "oh btw he/she received multiple stab wounds before the drowning" do you? Never mind. Even if briefly, it deserves a mention in that sentence. David J Johnson and IdreamofJeanie didn't seem to have much of an issue with the insertion. Bye.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Stockton, Shropshire

There are 3 places called Stockton in the ceremonial county of Shropshire, I see that you removed the post from my talk page with "confused" but didn't revert. If you look at List of United Kingdom locations: Sto-St Q#Stoa-Stom and click on the coordinates, you will see that there is one near Bridgnorth (a village and CP), one near Chirbury (which Stockton, Shropshire refers to) and one near Newport, in the UA of Telford and Wrekin. I'd also point out that the link in Abraham Shuker is most likely to refer to the Worfield one but I didn't change that as I don't know for sure. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I was interrupted and didn't return to editing until now. Is Stockton, Worfield the best name for this place, it is not the postal address. I am not interested in Commons categories. J3Mrs (talk) 07:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)