User talk:Keith D/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Rivers

Hi Keith.

On my talk page, you wrote:

Please note that the UK convention on rivers is to use comma disambiguation not brackets, please do not change the existing templates that go directly to articles to go via unnecessary redirects.

Actually I think it is much more complicated than that. The comma and bracket disambiguation styles have different histories and semantics. The a (b) style is WP's original disambiguation style, and the b can be any term that sensibly helps disambiguate the article.

The a, b style originated because of the US habit of referring to cities as city, state (which strictly speaking isn't WP disambiguation at all, because it reflects common real world usage). However over time it has become accepted as a disambiguation style because of its use in places (like the UK) that do not normally talk that way. But perhaps because of this history, the a, b disambiguation has different semantics. From WP:NCDAB:

With place-names, if the disambiguating term is a higher-level administrative division, it is often separated using a comma instead of parentheses ...

In other words a, b can only be used where a is a place-name and b is a higher-level administrative division. Now personally I don't think a river is a place-name, but I concede this is ambiguous. And an attempt to gain consensus on this last year got nowhere (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rivers/Archive_2#Correct_ambiguity_in_naming_section).

What is unarguable is that the a, b does not work as a universal disambiguation standard for rivers, because (unlike say cities) a river can span many different higher-level administrative divisions.

You can see a classic example of that with our articles on the River Avons in England. There are four of them. One of them (the River Avon, Devon) is confined to a single county and the comma separated style has therefore been used. The other three (River Avon (Warwickshire), River Avon (Hampshire), and River Avon (Bristol)) all cross county boundaries, so it would be inappropriate to name them using the comma separated style, as that would erroneously imply that the river is entirely within whatever county was chosen as disambiguator. Hence they are all currently named using the bracketed style.

Talking personally, I think that using two different styles in this way is messy, and I would prefer that we moved to the only one that legitimately can be used in all circumstances (the bracketed form). But I also realise that is contentious, and I have no intention of renaming any articles purely for this reason. Although I will rename them where I find the comma style being abused (as I recently did for the River Axe, Devon (which actually flows through Dorset, Somerset & Devon) and the River Axe, Somerset (which is entirely in Somerset, but is ambiguous).

Sorry if that is a bit long, but I hope that helps you understand where I'm coming from. -- Starbois (talk) 13:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed that there is problems with whatever system is in place, if the county is used I would expect the comma dab to be used and I have moved articles to that. The Avon ones were ones I have been thinking need moving to the comma dab for a while and may get round to them at some point. I guess that the major county that they are in should be the one used for dab where they happen to flow in more than 1 county or the region is used instead. Though some rivers use another river as dab where there are more than 1 in a county, and in that case I would expect the dab to be in brackets, River X (River Y). We should not be moving away from the comma dab for administrative units or using redirects to avoid direct links. Keith D (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I must confess I'm not entirely comfortable with a using a county name as a disambiguator in any style where the river actually flows through more than one county. I think if I'd named those three Avons, I would have been tempted to use River Avon (Bristol), River Avon (Stratford), River Avon (Salisbury), after the principal town or city on the river.

I can (slightly reluctantly) live with not moving away from the comma style where the disambiguator is a administrative unit. Can you live with not using administrative units as disambiguators where the river is not entirely within the unit?. -- Starbois (talk) 14:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

We should not be using places as dab unless there is no other choice as it only passes through a place and that is smaller than an administrative unit. I would use the major county for rivers that only just go into other counties where there is ambiguity over the county then use the river it flows into or go to the area name. Keith D (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggested towns in this case because I have heard (real) people talking about the Salisbury Avon and the Bristol Avon. In other cases I would indeed use the outlet water body (as I did with the River Axes), although that does give a problem here because River Avon (River Severn) could, at least arguably, be applied to both the Stratford and Bristol Avons. -- Starbois (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The Avon has probably got the right dabs at the moment, I do not think there is any need to change them, they are just in the wrong format and should just use the comma method rather than the bracket method. Keith D (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that just is not true. Take the River Avon (Hampshire) for example. It spends at least as much of its time in Wiltshire as it does in Hampshire. WP:NCDAB only allows the use of comma disambiguation for superior administrative units, and there is no way that Hampshire is a superior administrative unit to the long stretch of the river in Wiltshire. So there is no way you can validly rename this article to River Avon, Hampshire. The current name is certainly potentially misleading, but at least it isn't contrary to WP policy. -- Starbois (talk) 18:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Indent: Forgive me for me butting in on this topic - I'm not a river specialist - but as a resident of an area with two of the UK Avons, if no WP policy exists to dab rivers, perhaps something should be laid down. In our area the two Avons are referred to differently according to vernacular. I see the major settlement has been suggested for a dab, but possibly also the county of source, or the county of estuary or confluence, as well as local naming, should be taken into consideration when establishing a policy for entries in the Wikipedia.--Kudpung (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Assistance Received with the Edlington Article

Hi Keith, thanks for the editing you have been assisting me with. I am new to Wikipedia and its been good learning for me to review your improvements and housekeeping. I appreciate your help. Beatcascade 02:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatcascade (talk • contribs)

William Shakespeare

Hi, Keith. Check [1] Surely a block, preferably a permanent or very long one, is now in order? Best. --GuillaumeTell 00:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It is 24-hours for a first offence on the 3-revert rule as per WP:3RR. Keith D (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

WP Yorks newsletter

Thanks for your work on the February newsletter. Nice feature article. I'm still dealing with probate. Back soon, I hope.--Harkey (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Rail gauge 2

Keith, Please see User talk:Peter Horn#Rail gauge 2. Peter Horn User talk 20:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:RailGauge problem is not yet operational. Peter Horn User talk 18:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

2, 2 in (50.8 mm) & 2 ft (610 mm). What happened now? Peter Horn User talk 18:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it is doing it's job to me there are 7 articles there that need looking at. Keith D (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Frederick Tout article

Keith,

Would you please tell me why you did an undid revision of my edit of the Thomas Frederick Tout, F.B.A. article? It was my original edit of 1/9/10 that placed the B&D dates there in the first place.

Thank you -- Michael David (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You would have got it in the edit summary but it saved while I was typing for some reason. As it is an English person then dates are in international format with the day specified first. Month specified first is if the subject of the article is American. Keith D (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that the date format depends upon which country the person is from? Isn't that a bit silly? What on earth difference could that make so long as the date(s) are accurate? -- Michael David (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

There has been long discussions about the date formatting in articles and the consensus is to use international format for most articles and use month first for articles strongly related to America. Personally I preferred the auto-formatting of dates so that people could see them in the format they wanted. For details see MOS:DATE and for the discussions then see the talk page with its many archives. Keith D (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Keith. I, too, preferred the auto-formatting of dates. I am just so used to writing in the mo/day/yr format in my work that it will take some added concentration on my part to change that habit. What got me, also, is that this is one of the very rare times in my editing career in WP that an edit of mine was reverted without a discussion or message to me first. -- Michael David (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussing it with me first, before simply reverting it, would have given me a chance to change it myself. -- Michael David (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but discussion on every change is time consuming and in most cases is not very productive. Keith D (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

And I am asking you to please not simply revert my edits before discussing it with me. That is what collaboration is all about. -- Michael David (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey Michael David, he does it all the time, with no reference to the author, or gets a buddy of his to do it to avoid the 3 revert rule 7 make it look as if YOU are the vandal, even on your own page! Amhunt84 (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Keith D. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 01:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kudpung (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - February 2010

Delivered February 2010 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an * before your username on the Project Mainpage.

→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.
→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 09:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Leeds Architecture Articles

Thanks for your comments on my articles about Granary Buildings and St Pauls House. You might be interested in my other article "The Leeds Look" which is also about buildings in Leeds. EricPolymath (talk) 13:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ian Carmichael

Hey,

What do you mean my edit was wrong.

He has actually died, hes a relative.

Stop ruining wikipedia for everyone and put my edit back you tit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.144.179 (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you any reliable source for this we can only have it if it is in reliable sources. When a source is available then I will gladly reinstate it. Keith D (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

We now have a reference from the BBC so the information can be reinstated. Keith D (talk) 13:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind but I've put another welcome message on the IP's talk page which is somewhat less terse than yours. Perhaps it might form the basis of a more appropriate template given the circumstances of the IP's good faith additions. Note - I just came across this purely at random. Cheers, 86.23.83.91 (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Ian Carmichael

Just a thought: at 1 AM GMT today, someone said that Ian Carmichael had died but was reverted.[2] This was not on BBC etc until around 1 PM on 6 February. Although it is a huge no-no to announce a person's death on Wikipedia without reliable sourcing, someone seems to have known about this in advance.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It was a relation see above section where the user complained about my reversion. Keith D (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

A pity. Were it not for WP:RS and WP:NOTNEWS, Wikipedia would have had a scoop on its hands...--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

True, but necessary or Bruce Forsyth, to name one, would have been shown as dead along time ago. I did dig around to see if I could verify it but found nothing on the web. Keith D (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Bolingbroke Castle link

Hello, why have you removed the link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.109.106 (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Because we believe it is unsuitable link to add. A number if these have been added today and one user has been blocked for adding links to this particular site. I suggest you gain consensus about the addition of this web-site before adding it to any articles. Keith D (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Keith, have you looked at the link or are you just deleting it because some has suggested that it's unsuitable.

Virtual Tour of Bolingbroke Castle

Please look at the link. It is relevant to Bolingbroke Castle and replace it thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.109.106 (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I have looked at it and think that there needs to be consensus on links to this site as per the removal of it from other articles such as Lincoln Cathedral. Keith D (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

St Botolph's Church, Boston

Keith, don't know what's going on. But this is my page I've done louds to it. So can you an Bfreak stop what ever you are doing. thanks Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.21.122 (talk) 02:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

sorry that should have been "loads of work to it" —Preceding unsigned comment added by86.129.21.122 (talk) 02:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate your work on the page but no one owns pages here. There has been problems and the use of links to pages on the www.seelincolnshire.co.uk web site is currently an on going problem with spamming several articles and should not be used until there is some agreement to use a link to that site. Keith D (talk) 12:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Keith

This needs to stop, I'm a nice guy, please stop making me into an ass hole. I'm hopping that Rod is going to deal with tyw7, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rodhullandemu#set_the_dogs_on_me.21 Please stop vandalising my pages —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.163.126 (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

it's going to be a long day

every think that you've looked at and or edited in the last two day i will put back.. Don't make me in to the ass hole here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.163.126 (talk) 13:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This editor has been blocked and all edits pertaining to the above comment reverted... just to let you know! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I have not got that far in my watchlist yet. Looks like there will be more as keeps hopping round IP addresses. Keith D (talk) 13:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

As for linking to Google, well I seem to recall WP:EL is clear that you shouldn't link out to search engine results so we just need to keep our eyes peeled and revert/warn/block on sight... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Menston, Ilkley (www.menstonlive.co.uk)

Hi There. You recently removed a link I added for Menston, Ilkley. The link was for www.menstonlive.co.uk which is a community maintained blog serving the village. It has a membership which is 97% Menston based with contributions from local councillors, the parish council, Menston Community Association, members of the Local Pre-School, Child Development Centre, Police Community Support Officers etc etc and over 80% of the content is specifically for and about Menston - news, issues, reviews, comment and discussion specific to our community. The addition was marked not relevant which surprises me. Please can you let me know why this change was made and how I might be able to correct any perceived issues with the relevance. Best Regards Don —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donster222 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

We are not a collection of links see our external links police for further information. Keith D (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the prompt response. I haven't for one moment suggested you are a collection of links but www.menstonlive.co.uk is actually more relevant to the local village than Burley Round Table which I added several years ago (!) and is many more times relevant to the village of Menston than the Wharfedale Forums which serve a large geographic area and are far less specific or relevant than www.menstonlive.co.uk. Surely a response stating that you are not a collection of links is only valid if the current links are more valid than a new suggestion. Perhaps you can either review the relevance of the other links to show a clearly implemented policy or perhaps agree that a link to menstonlive is in the interests of defining and indentifying the village of Menston by the very content of the site in question. Regards Don —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donster222 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I was only looking at new material rather than looking at existing material. I have gone back to the article and agree that the Round Table link and the Forum links are inappropriate & I have removed them. I have also removed a dead link from the list. Keith D (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Good one. Now that they're gone and the list is shorter and more relevant to Menston can we agree that the MenstonLIVE link has a relevant and justifiable place on the page? Don —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donster222 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC) --Donster222 (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Still not sure about the site, ask on the talk page of the article to see what others think. Keith D (talk) 23:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You're Boring

Hi, no offence mate, but get a life. I made a funny change to a wikipage which no-one will ever visit, and you reverse it? God you need 2 get out more. You can delete this, or we can discuss, id rather the latter and would appreciate your input. 94.9.113.153 (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Angry Mexican

I think you are wrong there it gets about 70 visits per day. It is supposed to be a serious work not a place for jokes or vandals. Keith D (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well said, anonymous "contributers" must be banned. Peter Horn User talk 18:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Peter Sutcliffe

Thanks. I had just reported this to WP:AIV since the IP would not post to the talk page or respond to requests to discuss it. Also I warned him that if he continued I'd report it as vandalism. I reverted this back to a version that you had last edited at one point. I cannot verify the locations he was inserting and with no response, I was at a loss as to what to do next. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I have just made a request on the talk page as I cannot see what is going on, the alpha marks are totally unexplained and make no sense to me. Keith D (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you boy!

Thanks boy for telling me what to do with thumbs, but I am a bit eccentric, and hey I respect your advice. Why don't hypercubes convolve with oscillating flesh cryogenics? (You did not understand?) Good! Mayurvg (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

{{talkback}} Kudpung (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

{{talkback}} Task force? Kudpung (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

{{talkback}} What i will do... Kudpung (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Bronte translation

Sporry Keith, I forgot to put the link to the work page. Its HERE. if you will be having a withering go at the heights of Bronte yourself, don't hesitate to check it out from time to time and use what you can. i'm not working on the paragraphs or sections in any particular order. Don't forget to delete those ugly talkback banners from your talk page. (can't somebody design a less intrusive template?)--Kudpung (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks will take a look now and again. Keith D (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

There's another longer message for you on my talk page - just keeping tis Bronte discussion in one place.--Kudpung (talk) 04:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, the discussion continues HERE - I don't think this is in conflict with any Wiki policy.--Kudpung (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Leeds Arena

Hi Keith,

It seems I am in an edit war on the Leeds Arena page. A user, who seems to represent the views of one web forum user - is adding personal opinion that is deeply suspicious and articulating this as widespread fact. 3 users have expressed concern in an attempt of resolution. I think this page may need protection or an authorised editor, especially as it is a controversial project. It seems to be vunlerable to abuse. Could you assist/ cast your eye over the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Incognito2245 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I did warn Sdeel yesterday about the 3 revert rule but he was actually removing the section. I have semi-protected it for a month and ask for people to discuss on the talk page. Though that does not prevent registered users changing it so need to keep an eye out and see what happens. We can block the registered users indefinitely if they become a problem. Keith D (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Keith - I don't think sdeel is the problem. Although looks like someone persists in placing their theory and representing it as fact. Best kept watched.86.170.8.13 (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I am keeping an eye on it, though I sometimes wonder why Leeds related articles cause so much problems. Keith D (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

A war seems to have started. If we look at the discussion page the anonymous user is quite angry in his use of language towards me and Steve and sdeel. I live in Hyde Park and nobody can agree on anything so does not surprise me on Leeds articles causing trouble. Us Loiners know how to battle! Leeds is a battleground probably to do with politics in this case. Incognito2245 (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree - v unecessary language and probably points towards why discussion hasn't worked. 86.170.8.13 (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Stnlnk v rws

It's good to avoid redirects in general but Rws is much easier for arthritic typists than Stnlnk and cuts a bit of clutter from the arcane Gibberish that constitutes a BS template. Me, wikiwickedly if you choose, use and change Stnlnks to rws in any template I edit.--SilasW (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Not having heard of {{rws}} I had to go and look for it as it is not very clear from the initials what it is. Personally I would prefer to use a piped link and avoid a template altogether as it is unnecessary. Keith D (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Wellingborough

Hi Keith, Wellingborough is being considered by the Northhants project for possible nomination for GA review. As one of the top five contributors or editors, to the article and someone with a particularly good eye for detail, I wonder if you would have time to give it a once over, a sort of peer review, and point out any glaring items that could/should be fixed prior to its nomination for review. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

OK I will have a look, it will give me a break from what I am doing at the moment, one of those never ending tasks. Keith D (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I have had a look through and made comments at Talk:Wellingborough so anyone interested in the article can see them. Hope that they are not too difficult but it is not looking in bad shape for a possible GA submission. Keith D (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) --Kudpung (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Greater Grimsby

Hi Keith, I just wanted to ensure that the new Greater Grimsby website - the new website for North East Lincs is linked on the appropriate pages (Grimsby, Cleethorpes, Immingham and NE Lincs). It is not spammy, it is a non-profit council-run website that seeks to inform the wider business community of the latest news and information from the area. Virtually every other town and city in the country has their official business (inward investment) websites listed on Wikipedia. Sorry if I was clumsy in adding them! Appreciate your help on how these can be included. Thanks. --WikiPlacesEditor (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought that it failed the external links policy as they are just promotional and so should not appear - take a look at WP:EL for detail of links that are acceptable and those that are not. What does this add to the article apart from a place to promote the area/businesses? Keith D (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - March 2010

Delivered March 2010 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an * before your username on the Project Mainpage.

→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.
→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 10:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25