User talk:Jongleur100/Archive4

Jongleur100's homepage	G allery	Contributions	Edit stats	Userboxes	Sandbox
User Homepage	Gallery	Contributions	Edit stats	Userboxes	My Sandbox

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Auto rickshaws

Regarding them being in London, is that received wisdom, or do you have a source for it? Regarding your revert of my edit, you threw the baby out with the bathwater and deleted other sourced edits and cleanup. You need to be more careful with rollback. I've undone your revert, but put back in the Chinatown mention with [citation needed]. Fences and windows (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I own up. Maybe I was a little too quick. I revert an awful lot of vandalism and very occasionally it goes wrong. I thought that some dickhead was trying to say that Chinatown wasn't in London, but in Brighton. (Hence my edit summary 'It's the area around Gerrard Street.) That's what I reverted, sorry. I am not, however,responsible for the entry itself, you'll have to look elsewhere for the culprit. I am actually in agreement with you that there doesn't appear to be any Tuk Tuks in London, but I believe there are plenty of rickshaws or tri-shaws ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 16:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I think my edit summary was a little garbled. I was trying to say that there weren't any Tuk Tuks in London (I had a good search for sources), but there were some in Brighton. I shall endeavor to be clearer in future. Fences and windows (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Plaid and nationalism

Hello there.

I notice that you removed the word "nationalist" to describe Plaid.

Do Plaid specifically reject the term "nationalist", and if so, can you show me where? If they have done so, I agree that they shouldn't be described as such in passing (although I still think they are).

It would surprise me, I have to say. They were specifically known as the Welsh Nationalist Party for most of their history. The BBC calls them Welsh nationalists, and I don't think it would be right to remove it just because they don't use it themselves. I doubt that the Conservatives make a point of calling themselves "a right-wing party", but that doesn't mean they aren't, and nor do they have the right to stop others calling them that.

Some people reading the article will have no idea who PC are. If I'm not going to describe them as "nationalists", what word should I use? BillMasen (talk) 16:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

They describe themselves as 'Plaid Cymru - the Party of Wales'. That should do. Anything else is POV ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 17:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid it simply will not "do" as a term of description. Does it mean that other Welsh political parties are not truly Welsh? Political parties do not have an absolute right to define themselves, and nor does any other organisation. Given that they are routinely described as Welsh nationalists, and this is not acceptable to you, what term of description (not self-description) should be used? BillMasen (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Chesterfield

You reverted an edit based on the fact that "a Chesterfield is a kind of sofa", well, uhh, so are the other 4 things listed in that sentence. "A chair for more than one person is a couch, sofa, settee, or "loveseat"; or a bench." bench is the only one that isn't. (I know i'm on an IP, just reply here, i'll be watching) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.106.4.94 (talk) 05:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:Cardiff

	You are cordially invited to join WikiProject Cardiff!
	You appear to be someone that may be interested in joining WikiProject Cardiff.
	Please accept this formal invitation from a current member of the project.
	The project aims to facilitate team work in the development of Cardiff related articles.
	If you decide to join the project, please add your name to this list.
	I hope you accept and look forward to working with you!

Welshleprechaun (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Cotswolds

--Kudpung (talk) 10:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Awesome

Greetings. I just wanted to let you know that I removed the entry that you reinserted from Awesome. I figured that you did the same thing I did. I reverted an addition of a red link without checking the old link (which was also red), you then reverted back to the original red link. If I am wrong, and you did mean for that link to remain, I apologize. Regards, Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 22:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems like we were reverting at the same time. It happens. ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 23:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Cool, I thought that it was probably a mistake on both of our parts, but I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't edit warring. I figured out what happened, an editor had changed the name from Mike Awesome to a red link. Then an IP changed the name of the red link to another red link, and that's where we came in :) Cheers. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 23:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:CITIES

Hi Jongluer, I see you changed the WP:Cities rating for Newport back to mid. I'd like to discuss a consistent approach to the Welsh cities - another local editor recently downgraded Newport[1] and Swansea[2] to 'low' and upgraded Cardiff to 'top'[3]. There may be a case for all of these judgements but what criteria should we be applying? Pondle (talk) 11:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, there doesn't seem to be any consistancy at all. I merely based my judgement on the fact that although it's called WP:CITIES it covers small towns and villages too. It's patently absurd to rate Newport LOW when the same criteria would apply to Ynysddu or Blackwood, which is why I moved Newport to MID. As a capital city I agree that Cardiff should be TOP. But it's all pretty subjective. This is a problem throughout Wikipedia, not just in Wales. If you disagree with any of my judgements please feel free to change them. By the way, Newport is getting a lot of international coverage at the moment because of the Ryder Cup so that criterion is satisfied. ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 11:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we could start a general discussion at the WP:WALES noticeboard. Until then, I hope you don't mind if I put Newport back to the previous assessment - I don't necessarily disagree with your rating, I just think we should be consistent across Wales and perhaps even the UK as a whole. I do find it odd that Los Angeles for example, with 3.8 million people and an entertainment industry of global importance, is only rated 'high', below many much smaller and less well-known cities. As you say, one of the oddities of Wikipedia. Pondle (talk) 11:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't mind you changing it at all. Unfortunately there are some editors who read guidelines and treat them as gospel, as if written in tablets of stone. No guidlines can cover every possibility. Some capital cities in small countries will have a smaller population than a medium size town in the UK. But their importance will be greater locally. Should that be taken into consideration? ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 11:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess it depends whether the ratings are supposed to reflect local or global importance... the current guidelines aren't clear either way. And as you say, having just three tiers for all kinds of settlements seems unsatisfactory. Pondle (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

No broad consensus.

You need to discuss the changes you made on the talk page first, pre-hand before making such an edit. I know this, because an Admin told me so when i was making an Edit the other day. You have to make it as a suggestion first, seek consensus then change it.--Hawklin (talk) 10:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)