User talk:Keith D/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Kingston upon Hull

Hello again!

No problem at all. I can do a peer review if you like? - as a preparation for GAC?... Give me a short while and I'll take a look. I have to admit I know very little about this place so I'd be interested to read about it. From a cursory glance it looks good. Hope this helps.... I'll be back... -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done. I've reviewed the article, leaving lots of pointers at Talk:Kingston_upon_Hull#Peer_review. Hope this helps! I enjoyed reading it. -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Keith, thanks so much for keeping on top of the KUH work. Looks like it's pretty much up to us two or three. I'll take a look at the pointers this weekend and take a crack at some of them. We'll get there. Doonhamer (talk) 04:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

And will also get some more sourcing in. Doonhamer (talk) 04:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to help with the geography (and or) history. Will this be OK ?--Harkey Lodger (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer and by all means step in where you can. History is not my strong point & would need to do some research to sort the comments out for that section so any help would be greatly appreciated. Keith D (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I did rewrite and source the entire history section last fall. I can certainly see adding to it when convenient, but the big job that really needs work is sourcing the existing unreferenced material. Doonhamer (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Keith. I've just added a climate chart to the Geography section and messed up the layout(Oops!). Have you got a fix for this,please?--Harkey Lodger (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, sorry I have no fix for this one. There also seems to be a problem with the chart width between the 2 halves (top & bottom). I think I have seen similar problem on another article but cannot remember which. May be worth asking at Village Pump or on the template talk page. Keith D (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Got it - it was Durham that has a problem with the chart overlapping the table. Keith D (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - both charts are OK on my browser. I got a warning (I think) that the page is 87kb long. Is there a limit and is it time to make some of the prunings that you suggested ?--Harkey Lodger (talk) 16:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The warning is an old one that recommended that pages should be under a certain size but in not really used now, Manchester is up to 107Kb. I would think that the page is OK without too much pruning, apart from the unreferenced bits, though I would think that we would need to go to summary mode if there was an FA nomination to be made. Keith D (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I see you fixed it - though I still see the problem with the top half been wider than the bottom, though the examples on the documentation of the template look the same. Just to clarify the bars are spaced differently so they are bunched left on the imperial conversion half. Keith D (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean--- The effect is worse in some articles than others. I fixed the layout of the article by deleting the "float" instruction in the template. Trial and error, really!!--Harkey Lodger (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I found out how to fix the problem of bar spacing - it is the source URL being long that is the causing the top half to widen. Need to put out a shorter title such as Met Office to the screen as per usual [http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/19712000 Met Office] Keith D (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice one,great stuff. Thanks, it looks a lot better now.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Shall I bat on with a bit more of the geography? We seem to have addressed the concerns in the history section and it could go on and on and on-- Hull has a lot of it!! PS I'll do references as well, but too long a stint gets tedious (dun't it?)--Harkey Lodger (talk) 11:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I would bat on if you can, I have done a few of the easy bits on geography. I agree the references are tedious when you are retrofitting them better to do them as you go along, the other tedious one is sorting out the dead links which took me several days! On the history front it may be time to start a History of Kingston upon Hull article. Keith D (talk) 11:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Just in case you can find a reference - the first reference in the Industry sub-section is dead but I could not find a suitable replacement. I also looked for more up to date statistics but could not find any suitable to replace it. Keith D (talk) 13:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I got the ref but it didn't say what date the "16% of trade" was for so I altered the text to fit.I guess it will have to be maintained regularly to be really up to date and accurate in that respect. I'll look for more stats later.(A point of interest - I had never heard of a "ten foot or tenfoot" before!)--Harkey Lodger (talk) 12:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for locating the reference. You obviously do not come from Hull then if you have not heard of a tenfoot, there were plenty of them around when I was at school there, not so many today. Keith D (talk) 13:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Keith, When you have time, please can you have a look at the Hull article in my sandbox at User:Harkey Lodger/Hull? I'm not sure what to do next.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder and sorry for the delay, I am just ticking over at the moment keeping an eye on article vandalism as I have not had much time to do any serious editing. I am away from Thursday for the weekend, back next Wednesday, so probably will have to be after that by the time I get round to having a good look at the changes you made. I was also hoping that Doonhamer may reappear with some input. Keith D (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I have eventually got round to looking at the changes you made to the organisation of the article. I think that they are OK as it tends to bring things together more. The only thought I had was to move the Regeneration section up one to under Economy as they tend to be linked, rather than having them split by the Public services section. Unfortunately you will have to re-edit the live article to put the reorganisation in as there have been some changes to the text since you took a copy. Sorry again for the delay in looking at the changes but it came at the wrong time for me. Time for bed now before we loose an hour! Keith D (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've done the re-arrangement. It needs some attention to layout now, I think. I'm useless at getting boxes and text in the right places on pages. Over to you !?--Harkey Lodger (talk) 10:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Cannot see too much of a problem on my monitor the only bit that may be a problem is the chart and population detail. Though that does show up white space on a wide setting but it is OK on a narrow setting. Font size may alter this though, so I think we will go as it is at the moment and see if we can progress the other items on the review, and look at layout again when the text is ready for GA review.

Looking at the population details I could not work out how the referenced source came up with the 1941 detail as there was no census then. My guess is they used the 1939 registration detail but does not say anything in reference about that that I can see. Hopefully no one will query it. Keith D (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Please will you cast an eye over Hull again to see if I've done anything really daft (or even gormless in the local lingo). :) I couldn't tie up any reliable referencess for John Alderton and Paul Heaton either, although both seem to have local connections. I put their names and "Hull" into Google and got hits but not particularly stable or reliable ones.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I will look tonight. Obviously you had the same problem I had on the two people, may be we could substitute someone who we could better reference for, may be the connection of Paul Heaton with the Housemartins may get a reference to turn up. I think the other thing to do is the external links section which needs checking out to see if they are relevant and fit with WP:EL. Keith D (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

John Alderton is in Who's Who 2007, and it says "Education: Kingston High Sch., Hull." You can probably access it (as I can) online through your local public library, most of them subscribe to a service called "Know UK", where you just have to input your library ticket number to get online access from home. You can also probably access Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which is brilliant for dead people! PamD (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I have access to the OD through the library but not heard of the other one will have to have a look and see if it is available here. Keith D (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well our library has not got access to Know UK. Can you supply reference we can use in article? Keith D (talk) 19:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added a ref which I hope is OK. No page no available, though it's the online equiv of the printed book. The URL is http://www.knowuk.co.uk/doc.do?ResultsID=118ED45C23E1&SortType=relevance&searchType=quick&ItemNumber=1 but only available if you've got access through library or other institutional sub. PamD (talk) 23:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I think we are about ready for a GA submission, there are bits that could do with more information but will leave those for now as only required for FA if we go on towards that. Keith D (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Safestyle

The Safestyle article appears less than neutral, more like an advert for the company. Frequent removals of anything that doesn't show the company in the best light. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.153.13.68 (talk) 10:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a WP:COI by the person doing the removal, and the edit summary is rather threatening, I have issued a couple of warnings to the user. I was thinking of adding a sentence into the article about the offer and the adjudication, so that the external link can become a reference as it is a bit out of place as an external link. Keith D (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Keith: I did so a few days ago. I note that the user concerned was blocked for 72 hours on 21 March but seems not to have returned... as yet! One to keep on the watchlist. PamD (talk) 08:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I am still catching up at the moment. It is also on the Yorkshire project watchlist as it is a Bradford based company. Keith D (talk) 09:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

New project

There is a new project Wikipedia:WikiProject Warwickshire just starting. When you come back from holiday the bot might have made the statistics, but if not it would be good if you could you get the bot started. Snowman (talk) 13:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

When I made the directories and the assessment page for the WikiProject Warwickshire I found that the bot had already had several runs. Then I wondered why the statistics for the WikiProject Coventry unassessed articles were not included in the statistics table, so I have tried to fix it. I will not know if it is fixed until the next bot run. Snowman (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I ran the bot and got new statistics which proved that all the directories were correct for both projects. The statistics table now has an unasssessed category, which give extra details and explains the previously missing articles. I think that is will not make any difference if the WPCov abbreviation is used in the banner template. Snowman (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you have sorted it out while I was away. Columns/rows only appear in the table when there are articles that require them. I tend to use the full template name rather than the WPCov abbreviation as I can then detect that it is tagged. It currently does not detect the article is tagged when the abbreviation is used. May be I need to tweak something to detect the redirect as well. Keith D (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it works (I think). They will all be listed next run. Snowman (talk) 13:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is the script I use for tagging which shows the projects when looking at the article page and it currently only sees the full name to indicate that it has been tagged. Thus when the abbreviated version is used I see the article as untagged. Keith D (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The script is not very good, if it does not take account of redirected abbreviated project names. I guess that an update is needed. Snowman (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be a problem with the Coventry project though as the statistics are not been generated correctly. Some of the categories appear to be red-linked now so this may be the problem or it could be the new bot code. Any ideas what has happened? Keith D (talk) 12:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it works. All the directories are now listed as WikiProject Coventry. It might have done a run when it was still Coventry-related. I do not think that it will do another run with Coventry-related, because the directories are empty. I am not sure if the Coventry-related directories have been deleted yet. Snowman (talk) 13:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I had not realised you had changed the name - the old ones are in my watchlist, I will change them over. Keith D (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Yorkshire

Thanks for your message re: categories for photo requests. I've made the changes so the N, S, E, & W Yorks are sub categories of Yorkshire, and Yorkshire is moved down to the England category.(I thought it might stimulate more/some interest from photographers if the requests were on, or linked to, the main project page.)What about the new wording for Goals & Scope? I tried to leave it as open as possible.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for changes to photo categories, I did think while I was out that we could use the Yorkshire category for things that are in more than one sub-division, such as rivers and roads. On the goals/scope I cannot see the changes you made - did you do them somewhere else or not save them? Keith D (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I put a section on the talk page of WikiProject Yorkshire [here] Hoping for a response from others as well.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 16:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I had not looked there for it. Looks OK, though I think we may need a section later in the text to expand on the Goal to give some details. May be a section on aims to give a list of things we are attempting to do as per WikiProject Greater Manchester would help to expand on the headline Goal. Keith D (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree about a specific Aims section as per Greater Manchester .(I quite like their sidebar as well!!)

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

--Harkey Lodger (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a first draft sidebar at Wikipedia:WikiProject Yorkshire/Sidebar(grateful thanks to WikiProject Greater Manchester).I will make the links work with the new front page when it goes live and add it into the Templates section if that's OK. I was wondering about a separate Templates sub page?--Harkey Lodger (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. May be we do need templates as there are now the 4 newish ones {{East Yorkshire}}, {{North Yorkshire}}, {{South Yorkshire}} and {{West Yorkshire}} that could go there for reference with the others. Keith D (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Would this be spamming:

Thank you for your edit to an article supported by WikiProject Yorkshire If you ever run out of ideas here are some jobs to do: Wikipedia:WikiProject Yorkshire/to do To discuss any aspect of the Project please visit theTalk page. To learn more visit the Main Project Page

or recruiting ?--Harkey Lodger (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you can use it to recruit people as there are others who do it like {{WP British Crime Invitation}} and {{Welcome WPGM}}. Do not forget to subst the template when used though. Keith D (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you only use it when someone has made an edit showing interest in the content of a page, not just a passing edit to change "would of been" to "would have been", fix a link, add cats or sortkeys, stubtype, or the various other wiki-gnome activities. I've edited a load of articles on rock bands, baseball players, small towns in India, etc but have no interest in joining projects about them and would find such invitations distinctly spammish! PamD (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that it needs to be targeted at people who have shown some interest in Yorkshire articles by their edit history. Keith D (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, I agree totally--Harkey Lodger (talk) 09:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Wikipedia:UKCITIES is just a project guideline, not an actual guideline or policy so it doesn't really matter in that regards. I used the settlement one because it looks better as that one has the option of inlucding the city/town council arms and the option of adding other fields. Apart from that both give the same information. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Keith D, thanks for the contact.

I'm afraid my opinion is in conflict with Yorkshirian's; I think we should use UK place here. UK place was developed with extensive discussion (several archive's worth!) - WP:UKCITIES merely reflects the various consensuses formed there. It was developed, I believe, to ensure consistency, neutrality and stability for all places and not omit or give greater weight to certain things (ie home nations over UK, the county system etc etc). User:MRSC was behind a great deal of the syntax, as was User:Warofdreams who might want to give some feedback here.

Infobox settlement is a great tool, and certainly has its place for the UK, but I think it should be avoided for all "sub-district" places as it is very unstable (there is no standard as to what should and should not be included), and open to all sorts of manipulation and points of contention.

In short, I would recommend a good faith revert. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for comment, I put a question on the Talk:Beverley page first so see if there are any further comments there, before acting. Keith D (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Its still in use, on the website of Beverley Town Council they show the shield with the beaver on it (Beverley means "beaver stream" or something like that). - Yorkshirian (talk) 02:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the infobox of Beverley as per WP:UKCITIES as there has been extensive discussion on the use of infoboxes in UK place articles there, see also the archives. Please discuss any changes required to WP:UKCITIES about using the settlement infobox there as there is a much wider audience than the Beverley article and it has impact on a UK wide basis. Keith D (talk) 11:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have made Yorkshirian aware of the three revert rule with this diff. As ever, discussion is the right way forwards, not warring. I'll monitor the situation. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this and also note on Talk:UKCITIES WT:UKGEO which is where I was heading when I found your note. May be there needs to be some expansion in the guidelines as to what the exceptions are and why. Keith D (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That's no problem at all. I do note however that there is no fair use rationale for the CoAs to be used on Beverley and that from a cursory glance, the arms pertain to Beverley (borough), not the town proper. Therefore, surely Yorkshirian's calls for it to be displayed within an infobox are void? Or have I missed something? --Jza84 |  Talk  19:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That's my take on the CoA too. The Beverley one that Yorkshirian keeps displaying does indeed only seem to relate to the former borough, and not the current Town Council or even as an "Official logo of Beverley" as his mouseover says (makes similar claims with CoA at Selby and Market Weighton too). The shield from within the CoA is the only bit that appears current, as featured on the Beverley Town Council website homepage. Haven't yet found the full CoA anywhere on website.Dallan72 (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

(<-) Hello again,

Just to let you know that Yorkshirian is at the 3RR noticeboard here. I've included some diffs of troubling edit summaries and commentary. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - looks like things have escalated since I was here this morning with page protection on Beverley. Looks like we have a week to see if a consensus can be reached one way or the other. The CoA looks like only part of the problem and that the rest of the infobox is being questioned by the actions. Keith D (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Heaton, West Yorkshire

What is the reason behind this edit? I did not understand. Is not it overlinking to link simple dates and years. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No it is for the operation of user preference which converts the date into the format selected by the user. Also we never use ordinals like 1st 2nd 3rd etc. for dates. For a description see WP:MOSDATES, the section on 'Autoformatting and linking' gives details of how we link dates. Keith D (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will self-revert. But without interlinking, many times I tried to link simple dates and years and was advised not to link years and dates. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You do not link part dates only full dates including the day, that may be why people have complained. Though some people do not like the linked dates at all, but until there is a change to the software to do it some other way then we have to live with it. Keith D (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

removal of link

Hi Could you explain why you keep removing the link to the hullnet.co.uk website?

As far as I can accatain it has a right to be there? or do you work for KCOM's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiderbug (talk • contribs) 11:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not work for KCOM and the link looks like it has nothing to do with KCOM but looks like advertising for an alternative service to KCOM. It adds nothing about KCOM to the article and so I have removed it as it fails under our external links policy see WP:EL. If you can indicate how it meets the criteria for inclusion then all is well. Keith D (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Selby, Beverley etc

Hi,

I see you've been dealing with infobox changes etc in Yorkshire - I've just been reading some of the discussions! I have seen the additions of crests as static images, etc. and I am slightly concerned with the length of article you have to scroll through before you find some 'real' information. As infoboxes are to give a short summary (in a similar vein to the Lead), would you agree that the images/crests are not really in the right place - and maybe could go in the article and not the infobox?

I didn't want to stir up more trouble, hence why I am mentioning it here to you, rather than going straight for the jugular and Yorkshirian!

I'd be interested to hear some more views!

Well done on enforcing consensus though... –MDCollins (talk) 00:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with you that the infobox is rather long especially on the shorter articles once the crest in inserted into it. I personally would have put the crest lower down the box or placed it in the governance section of the article. Though whichever infobox is in use it is near the top, on Manchester on Kingston upon Hull which use the settlement box you have to scroll a page to get to real information. If you want to bring it up at a central discussion then feel free to do so but be prepared for a reaction from those who want it as is. Keith D (talk) 09:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Stratford-upon-Avon. Thanks, sounds logical!

Thanks for your post to Talk:Stratford-upon-Avon re my question on "Notable residents" or "Trivia"?
I'm personally extremely susceptible to that type of "Well, the people who are concerned about this subject have a guideline on this" way of resolving these things. :-) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

edits

I appreciate the review, however the purpose of my links were comparible to a listing from the chamber of commerce. When I was travelling through the UK I found the site helpful in finding the variety of businesses in the area I would utilize. For example, dry-cleaning, hair-cut, accomodations. I thought it would be helpful to others as well.

SecureStream (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Jason W. Dallas / SecureStream

I appreciate what you were trying to do, may I point you at wikitravel which may be more of an appropriate place to add the link. Wikitravel is an online travel guide and has links that are more commercial in nature that we do here with our aim of producing encyclopaedic entries. Keith D (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint about where to go to have a category renamed

Hi, Keith. It's me, Aexus. I've read your note about where to ask for a category rename. I've now posted my request on the Categories for discussion page. Since the rename is about a capitalization change I have requested a speedy rename. I've also informed the authors responsible for creating and editing the category and I've left a note on the main article's Talk page, namely on the Eve Online Talk page. Thank you for your hint about where to request a category rename.
-- Aexus (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

How to get a location to appear on Google earth?

Hi Keith D, Thanks for the useful links I will and digest when I get a chance. One of the things I was trying to do was get a place mark to appear on Google earth to match the location of Thongsbridge similar to the links found in Holmfirth Upperthong etc. I was told that if you Geotag an artical in Wikipedia then it will automaticaly appear in google earth. I added the village co-ordinates but no luck. Do I just have to be patient or do I need to do more? --Martinstev (talk) 14:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that you need to be patient, as Google earth takes the links periodically from a database dump so it can be up to about a month before links appear on Google earth. It depends where it is in the cycle and it could even be a couple of days if you hit it right. Keith D (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Serb clans

Why protection under this highly biased name?

+ you did not simply protect the page but rather participate in its editing, you reverted the most NPOV way of describing the article with the title Fraternities of Montenegro to the previous one. Why have not choosing from many other possibilities.

Why retaining the clear POV of some previous editors.

Imbris (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the move to restore the title that the text indicated and to the name that the article was when a previous move request failed to reach consensus. The various moves since then have not been discussed and there needs to be a discussion before a move is made as any move is clearly controversial.

I have no personal point of view on the topic in question and would ask that you discuss the name of the article on its talk page with other editors of the article so that a consensus on a suitable name can be reached. I will move the article to any agreed name. Keith D (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

WPYorks Newsletter

Hi Keith, As soon as we get the article of the month sorted out I think I shall be able to produce a newsletter from the template in my sandbox User:Harkey Lodger/Sandbox.( As usual, thanks to WP Greater Manchester - hence some of the text!!). I don't want to seem to "hog" the newsletter and would value your help in creating the text. I am willing to post it individually to members, but is there a bot that will take care of circulation, please?--Harkey Lodger (talk) 12:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You could try User:ENewsBot which appears to take requests but does not seem to have been used much though it does say that if it cannot fulfil request then will pass on request to another bot.

I had a thought on the discussion on articles for improvement while I was out but its rather off beat. The thought was to take a copy of the article and then for all of us to read it through and mark it up with tags. Those who know nothing of the subject will obviously spot things that need citing, that are ambiguous, where more info is required etc. which those who know the subject would overlook. I know that this will get the article copy full of tags but will show those who are actually editing the article pointers as to where things need doing. Thus we could all contribute to an article development early on, in addition to the usual spelling checks, wikilinks etc which would come at the end of the process.

Keith D (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I'll try it when the time comes. Yes, it's a good idea for a group to tag up the improvements that can be made to an article. A fresh pair of eyes can spot things that one who is familiar with the text or subject matter can miss. I sometimes try to imagine how someone in, say, South America would respond to an article on a place in Yorkshire. Context is everything.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As it rained this morning :-(, I did some more work on the newsletter. It's still at my sandbox User:Harkey Lodger/Sandbox. It needs pages setting up to eliminate the red links. Please can you do this?(I'm a bit nervous of getting it wrong and messing it all up). I've also started to revise the member list on the front page of WP:YORKS to show contribs and talk . There is nothing revolutionary, just easier to add to and maintain and for members to mark up for not wanting the newsletter to be sent. Also I've dated the newsletter for May. I don't think we can get it done sooner.No rush.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The weather forecast said rain but we have sun here at the moment!! I will talk a look later, rather a long watchlist at the moment, looks like they have been tagging articles for WP:UKGEO which is confusing things at the moment. Keith D (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The rain came so must be moving south. I have added a Monitor to the letter as I think that has to be one of the things that needs doing. It is pointless producing good articles then leaving them to be vandalised. I have also set-up the short-cuts and the list of newsletters article WP:YORKS/N, you just need to move your sandbox to the appropriate May 08 name. Keith D (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

(reset) Just had a belter of a thunderstorm, so turned the computer off for a while. We still get power cuts in storms. Thanks for doing the page making bits. I'll transfer the newsletter now and work on it in its new destination.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh! By the way

		The Genuine Yorkshire Rose
		To Keith D for contributions to WikiProject Yorkshire--Harkey Lodger (talk) 19:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks - have not seen that one! Keith D (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I've posted a request for delivery at User:ENewsBot/Requests and, as my mother says, "I,ve done it, should I have done?" :-) --Harkey Lodger (talk) 10:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Lake Albert

Thank you for fixing it up! :) Bidgee (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Kingston upon Hull

Hello again! Thanks for the contact! I'll do my very best to read the article from top to bottom (in the next 36 hours-ish) to see if I can spot any remaining challenges. From a cursory glance, it looks really great and a serious candidate for FA in the not too distant future! --Jza84 |  Talk  00:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Keith - sorry to trouble you. I just had a look at Kingston upon Hull and it looks great... The only problem, for me, is that the climate chart crashes into the demography population chart. I've tried looking at it on two computers, and it still does the same thing. Not by much, but climate does cover the top of the population one. --seahamlass 13:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - looks OK here on my normal viewing. Looks like narrowing the window or increasing the text size causes the same problem for me. Will have to see if I can get round it. Keith D (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the chart up a paragraph so when collapsed it is above the population table. I have also put a clear in to keep them apart but it leaves some white space on small fonts or wide windows but not too bad. Is that OK for you? Keith D (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It's better for me now (Firefox, Windows XP). PamD (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That's much better - all the problems are sorted. Good luck with the GA!----seahamlass 17:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding to non-school articles

Can I ask why the bot is adding project boxes to non-school articles. It has added a banner to Ash Green, Warwickshire which is a location article not a school article. The article gives details of a school but so do many location articles. Also it is adding the banner ahead of existing banners it should add a new banner after existing banners. Thanks Keith D (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Because the page is in a school category, specifically Category:Arts Colleges in England. If you'd prefer it not be tagged under the schools project it should not be categorized as a school. Adam McCormick (talk) 04:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I had not spotted it as been in a school category, the change to the talk page was what I was interested in. I reverted the change as it clearly should not be present, unless the schools project is also looking after all location articles that mention schools. I think the category on colleges should go as well. May be it needs its own article as it is an Arts college. Keith D (talk) 10:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Help with Move

Hi. I saw you on the WP:RM talk page and was hoping you could help with something. The England national football team managers article is being moved to remove the "s," and we're having some trouble with what has to be done in order to "close" the discussion and figure out how much time has to pass before we can make the move. The discussion is also taking place at WT:FOOTY. I'm in favor of the move and there seems to be a rough consensus, though admittedly it has only been a few days since I proposed the move. I consulted a previous admin User:Tone, after repeated suggestion by the article's creator User:The Rambling Man that the discussion be ended so that more pressing matters could be addressed by WP:FOOTY. He even asked Tone to make the move, and Tone did so, before it was reverted by another editor because the discussion was "not properly closed." Basically I would just like some guidance on the issue, and would greatly appreciate your help if you can spare a few moments. Thanks. -- Grant.Alpaugh 11:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Normally we leave them to run the course at WP:RM, which is 5 days, so today we should be closing off moves requested on 23 April. Though they can go into the backlog section where discussion is on going or there is no clear consensus on the move. The discussion has still a day to run to complete its course but I fear it may end up in backlog as the discussion is getting heated with The Rambling Man effectively resigning. Personally I would go with the The Rambling Man and not worry about the article title and get on with improving articles. As he effectively requested the article be moved then I cannot see the objection from the reverting user but I would leave it until tomorrow then they can have no objection to closing as it has run its course. Keith D (talk) 12:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your time. Thanks for the clarification. I agree that we have bigger fish to fry but this issue came to my attention and Rambling actually urged me to "Go for it!" on the talk page, so I did. Hopefully this will all be behind us in a day's time. Thanks again. -- Grant.Alpaugh 12:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, TRM asked Tone to close the discussion, only because Tone had unilaterally made the move, not because TRM thought it was time for the discussion to be ended. A pernickety but important point in a pernickety and unimportant dispute. --Dweller (talk) 12:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10