User talk:Keith D/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Template:RailGauge

In June you made an alteration to this template for Peter Horn. This alteration takes the template out of line with the normal nomenclature used in that field. Andy Dingley and I think the change is not for the better. Globbet (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggest contacting Peter Horn, as he has been the one supplying the conversions for this template, to see what his view is on this. Keith D (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Best Wishes

I've just falled victim to the transatlantic "Notability" police again, and I've had enough of self-important people who appear to resent the addition of new material, and who have formed views that are just plain belligerent.

I'm not going to bother any more, but I wanted to wish you all the best and thank you for your encouragement and assistance. --Brunnian (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for note, sorry to see you go. Personally I often think that notability is used to just get things deleted and many of the articles are suitable for inclusion they just fall into a class that people are not interested in having around. Keith D (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Brunnian might be over reacting a little. Nothing ha been deleted yet. Perhaps you could look at his talk page and maybe even chime in. --Kudpung (talk) 03:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of that but have not got there yet as still catching up from holidays. Though my view is significantly different here as I am really against this notability on such things as places/schools/organisations etc which go over and above the general notability guidance. Why should we not have articles on these things as they are detailed in third party references and so meet the general notability criteria. Keith D (talk) 09:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern England

FYI. --Kudpung (talk) 03:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Bridlington's famous sons

It was a rather short list that I found a couple of days ago and attempted to add John Richardson (Quaker), who kept a watch repair shop there for several years. However, the local Bridlingtonian who seems to do most of the work on the entry wanted to confine the list to people who were born there. That's not the practice with other lists of town notables, but it didn't seem to me to be a grave fault. Now you've cut the list out altogether. I read the "guidelines" you cite and find that it looks down on such lists altogether and thinks they should be composed in prose. Are you doing this? I don't think it's advisable just to zap the list, which may offend local sentiments. (I'm not a Bridlingtonian, by the way.) Googling '"born in Bridlington" Wiki' throws up all sorts of exciting people, by the way. Will you be going round the other few hundred such lists of notables attached to town and city articles as well and rewriting them as a prose? Could you point to an article where that has been done, in your view, very successfully? Let me know if I can be of any help. Until I hear from you, my personal policy (I mainly add biographical articles, not geographical ones) will be to add to such lists where I find them. In future I'll try to make mention of them in prose if that is the format the locality article has already adopted. For myself, I find lists of notables intriguing, even if they sometimes consist of minor footballers and lottery winners. Blessings. Brian Bmcln1 (talk) 09:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that you have misread what I intended with my edit summary. All I have done is remove the words "born in Bridlington" from the title as we are supposed to avoid having the article name in the headings. I also was trying to point out that WP:UKCITIES does not restrict the section to including only those born in the place but also those associated with the place, as a previous editor had seemed to want to restrict the list just to those who were born in Bridlington. The list is still in the article though I must say that I prefer the separate List of articles when the list grows beyond about 20 entries. Keith D (talk) 10:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I see the list is still there. Actually, googling '"born in Bridlington" Wiki' throws up a lot of interesting characters, including a 12th-century chronicler of vampire stories, but perhaps it's best to leave the spade work to the locals, if they're interested. Bmcln1 (talk) 10:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

There are several that could be added but it is a lot of work to get references for them and their relationship to a place to actually compile such a list. I started the List of people from Kingston upon Hull list but that has not grown much and most of the recent entries are not cited but lots more could be added. Keith D (talk) 10:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look at the Hull list and see if I can help to populate it. Bmcln1 (talk) 10:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - October 2010

Delivered October 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) · 00:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Norman Wisdom

As has been pointed out to me after I'd chastised someone for changing Wisdom to Wisden, the New York Times, at least reports his birth name as Wisden, becoming Wisdom around 1946. If you have access to his biography, it's worth checking - the NYT could be wrong, although I'm told there are other sources. Acroterion _(talk) 12:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I did drop a note on the talk page that the GRO Index for his birth and his parents marriage has Wisdom and I would doubt if both entries are wrong. May be we are perpetuating a myth that there was name change. Keith D (talk) 12:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Saw your note at Talk:Norman Wisdom; seems like we have conflicting sources, and I'd really like to know where the New York Times got their information. There's been much talk in the press about the sourcing of his obits as it is. I'd say we should leave it as Wisdom until we find something better than a mention in an obit. Acroterion _(talk) 12:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Do not know of any more reliable source than the GRO Indexes for birth names, unless you look at the actual certificate, unless there was some subsequent revision of the information by a re-registration which is not shown to be the case here. Keith D (talk) 12:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK

Hi Keith, I'm loving the DYK section in Lincs, keep it coming! DancingGerbil (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see it is of use. New entries depend on getting new DYK entries on the main page for Lincolnshire articles. Keith D (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I've just added a bit to Sedgebrook but I'm struggling to find anything interesting enough for a DYK, is there a DYC (Do You Care)? ;-) DancingGerbil (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I just saw the changes you made to Sedgebrook, much better, thanks very much (in my defence I'm very new to this!) DancingGerbil (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem, we were all beginners at some point. Places are usually difficult ones to get on to DYK, biographies are much easier as they tend to be more interesting to others. Keith D (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Bourne Westfield Primary School merged to Bourne, Lincolnshire

Hi Keith. In response to the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bourne Westfield Primary School, I have today carried out the merger myself, so as to see that as much research as possible was preserved. But there's a big problem. Please see my comments on the talk pages of the two articles. Advice please? Thanks.--Storye book (talk) 09:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I would have closed the review as no consensus and cannot see why the article failed to meet the WP:GNG, possibly consider a WP:DRV if you think similarly. On the Bourne article it seems to give far too much detail and really needs to be split out at some point. If you did the same for the other schools in the town then the article would be excessive and unbalanced. Though I must say that I hate merging articles, unless they are on the same subject, as you tend to loose the information over time as people start to trim it down. Keith D (talk) 11:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I had a look at the WP:DRV page, which says I have to discuss it with User:Kudpung before putting a delrev template on the Bourne Westfield Primary School article. So I've left a message on his talkpage, and we'll see where it goes from there. Thank you for your kind help so far.--Storye book (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

May be worth asking closing admin to take a second look as well. Keith D (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought closing admin was Kudpung; since he initiated the original deletion discussion I thought he must have done the closing. Please could you kindly give me a link to closing admin? Thanks. Also I'd be happy to start the split-off article from Bourne, as recommended by User:JonRidinger on the talkpages of the two articles. His suggestion of the title, "Education in Bourne, Lincolnshire", sounds OK to me. But I'd be grateful to hear your opinion before I take any action. --Storye book (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The closing admin was User:MuZemike, it would be incorrect for someone to close their own deletion discussion. Would be worth starting a spin-off article if there is no change to the status on the delete. The Bourne article needs more really before doing summary-style and a separate could easily get deleted for similar non-notability issues as there is only a couple of others that need detailing and 2 with their own articles being secondary schools. Keith D (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You've made some good suggestions Keith, and there is no shame in good colleagues not sharing the same opinion on an AfD close. UK schools and settlements are my main areas on Wikipedia, and I'd be happy to chip in if any solution for saving the school data is found.--Kudpung (talk) 22:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I've decided to back out of this for the time being. I've left a similar message to Kudpung as follows:

Thanks for your kind help, and the huge effort which you have made above, to explain. It is much appreciated. I have decided to sit back and wait and leave this for a bit, to see what happens. As you know, I have also userfied the article to Brunnian's userspace, so that the data will remain accessible after deletion of the article in mainspace. However, if other editors want to pursue this matter of preserving the data in mainspace more urgently, they have my support. I have spent a lot of time on this, and now must do other things.

That is to say, I have other articles to watch and maintain on Wiki, and I don't want to neglect them for this.--Storye book (talk) 10:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

DST Leconfield

Kieth,

As stated in the previous message, The material used for the wiki was written by our department. it is the words of DST and the information is accurate. The link you supplied which shows the same content is the same because we wrote it. It is the same information pack we use for all our sites, press packs etc. Does this still cause an issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allen.jennison (talk • contribs) 10:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes because the status on the website indicates it is copyrighted material. You have to grant permission for it to be used and obtain an OTRS ticket for this and place the appropriate {{OTRS pending}} template on the talk page of the article. You have to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries to get the ticket number as a first step. The material will be removed if the ticket is not allocated because of problems over the application. Keith D (talk) 11:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Ashington A.F.C.

Hey KeithD;

You made a comment on the Ashington talk page about the league results timeline that I put up. I've added a key on the page, but there's a legend on the talk page I could sub in. What do you think? - Wmcduff (talk) 01:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The legend on talk page looks OK to put in article to clarify the meaning. Keith D (talk) 01:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Should I eliminate the league names above the line, you think, just have the colors and names only on the bottom in the legend? - Wmcduff (talk) 01:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

May be best as the abbreviated names could confuse. Not sure what will happen with screen readers for these. Keith D (talk) 01:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Done! Thanks for the input. (Hope it looks better.) - Wmcduff (talk) 01:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Maria Eagle

Hi, I did add the ref to the Marian Eagle article in the previous edit. The ref is a book on Google books--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I could not see quickly from the ref the detail from the article and made assumption that the ref only covered the last point in the paragraph. Would be better to give fuller details of the book, including page number where the information can be found rather than just a link to Google books. Keith D (talk) 23:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok no problem. The ref does link directly to the correct page though. I probably should have deleted the tags at the exact same time I added the ref.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi Keith! Could you please take a look at this image file:- File:IMG 0088.JPG. It appears that BrandonMMcLean has overwritten the original image, of a war memorial with what I suspect is his own portrait image for self promotion. The page he wrote about himself has been deleted, note his talk page, and he has been blocked indefinite, as a vandalism only account, but the image remains and the normal 'revert to previous image' option is not on the file page. Richard Harvey (talk) 07:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about stumbling all over this trying to "help". I am still baffled as to why the revert did not work. Ho hum. that'll teach me to stalk Talk pages! :) DBaK (talk) 08:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like this has been taken care of already as the image has been reverted, there could be problems with the image revert as I have never got it to work on the few occasions I have tried it. The image could probably be renamed to something more useful along with the set of images. 11:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Infinity Bridge

Hi Keith,
Please see Talk:Infinity Bridge.
Thanks, Bigger digger (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Keith, would you comment at the talk page again? 3 editors are in favour of adding Spence Associates to the infobox, you are the only editor against, and yet you continue to revert its addition. Bigger digger (talk) 00:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Peter Sutcliffe

I'm getting nervous about the "clean up" that a new editor is carrying out at this article. As you appear to be someone who has been contributing to the page for at least a few months, it might be worth your keeping a close eye on it: important and relevant information has already been chopped out. =/ GwenChan 16:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I have already commented on the user's notes on planned changes to the information indicating that I do not think it a good idea to loose the date information. Would be good for others to step in to see that it is not just one person's view but consensus is against the moves. I also think that a lot of the wikilinks added need removing but will leave that for the moment. Keith D (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if you might take a look at the discussions on Sutcliffe's talk page when you get the chance? I have a horrible feeling that this is all going to end up at AN/I or RfC/U =/ GwenChan 12:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering what would happen there as the so called new editor appears to know about a lot of policies and I was thinking may be there is a sock involved here. I will have a look again when I get to it on the watchlist. Keith D (talk) 12:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Renaming cities

Hi Keith. You may have missed this recent ongoing policy discussion and the sudden resulting discussions at Talk:Peterborough, Talk:Dover, Talk:Plymouth, Talk:Sydenham, Talk:Cornwall & Talk:Cambridge. I think it would be helpful if experienced editors, particularly those knowledgeable on policies regarding settlements, and/or geographical nomenclature, were to offer some comments.--Kudpung (talk) 00:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I had spotted problems, there is also discussion on York but has not got to a formal stage of a move request. Keith D (talk) 00:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Help

Hi Keith. I'm fairly new to editing on Wikipedia but getting the hang of it quite quickly. Noticed that the fb_rbr_header template had an error in it and wanted to have a look but I'm not sure how you actually get on to the editing page for a template (unless only the moderators are allowed to). Many thanks. Tom Tomtheevilgenius (talk) 11:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no restriction on editing templates, unless there is some protection on the page that can apply to anything. I know there is no protection on that page as I attempted a fix on it on Saturday and could not work out what the problem was. Click on this link {{fb_rbr_header}} and it should have a "edit this page" tab at the top, or similar, depending on what skin you are using in your preferences. Keith D (talk) 11:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Just gone through all of the templates associated with the table (fb_rbr_header, fb_rbr_ground etc.) but found nothing amiss. Many thanks again for your help. Tomtheevilgenius (talk) 11:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that it may be some programming limit on the number of conditions that can be tested. Keith D (talk) 11:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Inadvertent use of rollback

Hello, I have a question. I just reverted an edit on the Largo al factotum article by inadvertently hitting the rollback vandalism button. The edit was trivial, and I did intend to revert it, but it was certainly not vandalism. Should I revert myself, explain my mistake in the edit summary, and then revert the edit as trivial? That would seem to be the only way to correct the error. Your thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 21:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Not worth making 2 edits to the article. I would make a trivial edit to the article, punctuation or spacing, and use that edits summary to explain the situation. Keith D (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was running out of time, and went ahead and made the 2nd edit. There was a lot of useless trivia to remove anyway, so I just did it all at once. Thanks for the response. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Sidney Stringer

Hello... Regarding reverting Stringer's article...

I thought you could take material from publicly owned site. i'm guessing the school is publically owned? Its not copyrighted!

Thanks

kxv 16:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No all material is copyright regardless of the ownership of the site, unless it is explicitly stated that it is free of copyright and has a license compatible with ours it cannot be used. You are free to use the detail from the site as long as you write it in your own words. On another point you need to write it in the third person and remove all of the peacock words and promotional speak. Keith D (talk) 16:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (Following on from Peter Sutcliffe) GwenChan 18:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Leeds_Corn_Exchange

Well spotted - I accidentally only reverted the second half of the addition. But I did leave a uw on the first editor's page! PamD (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I had already reverted the addition earlier that's why I spotted it. Keith D (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Leeds

Hi Keith, can we reconsider decision to remove Leeds Forum, it's a community site for city and other external links there are similar (such as blogs). Edited it back but wanted to get in touch too.93.96.175.190 (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I cannot see how that link passes WP:EL. Keith D (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

There already existing links to sites which may fail the WP:EL - such as blogs. While Leeds Forum is a forum, it's a moderated forum and provides a reference point for current issues happening in the city. Does the WP:EL not provide the ability to consider each link on its merits by its use of the word "normally"? 93.96.175.190 (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Maps and lines

I've noticed we've had a tendency to "clash" over line thickness on my maps, with the lines often not being thick enough for your taste. That doesn't mean either of us is "right" of course. In some cases (eg the East Sussex locators I mentioned as comparison) in the recent thread on UKGEO, its understandable as they are very early maps before I really got to grips with data. Those will be revised in due course.

One complication when I'm creating the maps I need to work with very thin lines to ensure output is correct. I also do the final review as a high-resolution image. Clearly appearance as it will be used in article is the important matter, question is what resolution do you think I should be optimising output for? Infobox UK place = 240px wide, Infobox mountain = 272px, etc.

The district/no-district decision is one I had to make on the park maps, in some cases (the South Downs) exclusion is the better choice IMO. Excluding on the Dales map is probably in error. What I would say, is I want to be responsive to the users of the national park maps and tweak slightly to the needs of each group as opposed to a consistent national approach like with the county maps. eg if the river thickness is wrong, too many or not enough are shown I'd try to help there. Bear in mind topographic data (highly relevant to upland areas) is one thing I won't be doing anytime soon.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the Dales map is that as it stands there is no clear indication of the boundaries so you cannot tell easily where it is located. The existing map does a better job in that respect as it shows clearly the full county boundary and can easily be related to the area. I think you need to optimise for about the 250px mark then small increase/ decrease per info box should not really matter, though I would expect that it should still be recognisable at the site default setting. Keith D (talk) 11:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah not disagreeing there; I'll amend the Dales map later tonight :) I would say the new map is slightly different in intent to the existing map in the article; its potential primary use is in articles like Ingleborough (I'll have a go at using it to create a map in Yorkshire Three Peaks). The location of the Dales is better handled by a map with a wider area of coverage, such as the previous map or the one used as an inset in the new one.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It is easier now, with your efforts, to obtain maps for different areas than previously when it could take months for someone to come up with a map. May be you could put together some instructions for others to delve in and create maps that are needed. Keith D (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Definitely - on all points. My next real project is getting the documentation up to scratch, part of that will be instructions for others, possibly with a worked example, as well as providing clear system for requesting me to do so. Those instructions will relate to creating completely new maps and derivative maps. There's also a lot of work for bots to make simple derivatives (as I mentioned at WT:UKGEO#Area maps; once we have consensus on what is required from that I'll try to get assist.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Replied at the Dales map, I've made a quick hack at a map at 3 peaks - but will leave putting it into article to someone else (not sure where to put it..)--Nilfanion (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The Yorkshire Dales looks much better now. Not sure how best to use it though, probably best to replace the large topographical map that appeared recently and causes layout problems. May be others have some input on that. Keith D (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Lindsey Oil Refinery

Hi Keith

The information about the disaster at Lindsey Oil Refinery is incorrect.

On Saturday 19th June 2010 at 11:20 hours a man was found dead at Lindsey Oil Refinery. See here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10359941 Unfortunately the deceased had committed suicide by hanging. He was from Hartlepool

On Tuesday 29th June 2010 a blast and fire caused the death of a 24 year old worker called Robert Greenacre who was a local man. See here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10479837 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.248.159 (talk) 09:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional information, if you had left or changed the references then I would have been in a position to have made a better judgement on the change. Keith D (talk) 11:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I have made the appropriate change using the new reference that you have supplied. Keith D (talk) 11:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

General questions

Hi Keith, I noticed you tweaked some of my edits. I have some questions related to this: 1) are ref's supposed to always appear at the end of the relevant sentence after the full stop? 2) am i supposed to use file rather than image for pictures? 3) what is the strict interpretation of the people-from type category. Is it people who were literally born there, is it is people who have lived there at some point or may just have some strong connection with the place

Thanks Nige —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigelcoates (talk • contribs) 18:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

1. References always follow punctuation, as per WP:REFPUNC, if the reference and punctuation coincide. There is no guidance stating that references should go at the end of sentences, though is often better for flow.
2. The image namespace was renamed to file sometime last year, it is best to use file but image still works. There may be some move to change over at some point, so I am just pre-empting that when I am doing AWB edits as I do not have to think about it.
3. I cannot answer that one as it appears to be used differently without any consistency. I would have gone for birth place and only 1 per article. The question was ask in the last few days at some central point and I was going to see what the responses were but I cannot locate the thread at the moment.

Keith D (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Found it Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England but no responses as yet. Keith D (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Garforth Community College

Thanks for your efforts with the Garforth Community College page- I was the substantial editor under the IP user name - the article needs much general improvement! 8bitgeek (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

T May

Apologies on the dates ... had intended to fix that. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30