Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Worcestershire/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Ecclesiastical Parishes

Hello all! I have added a page for a Malvern church ( Church of the Ascension, Malvern Link ) and find myself confused by some of the information in the infobox. As far as I understand (perhaps wrongly) the ecclesiastical hierarchy goes Diocese->Archdeaconry->Deanery->Parish->Church. Many parishes or deanery have the same names as towns, but they are not the same things at all. So, on the page above, I want to link to the Deanery of Malvern, but find there is no page for that. I can create one, and create the hierarchy I show above for the Worcester diocese, but that would mean changing the Malvern Priory infobox (I notice that the Malvern Priory infobox just links to the town.) - something I would not dream of doing without an invitation from wiser and more experienced heads than mine! Am I overthinking this? Any advice welcome. Malpensilo (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Merging some small pages

The articles on Longdon, Queenhill and Holdfast have very little information and there is very little more of any notability to add. They are three separate Parishes, of which only Longdon has a core village, consequently they are jointly administered by a single Parish Council. This explanation features in all three articles, along with very little else to distinguish one article from another. I'd like to suggest that the two subsidiary articles be merged into Longdon, Worcestershire and the pages redirected. Are there any policies or guidelines about this?

Also, I should declare that I am one of the two Councillors currently representing Queenhill, so it is important that I obtain consensus before making any significant changes that might be construed as PoV edits. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Moved below here to keep the thread all in one visibly relevant place — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. On Wikipedia we insist very strongly that articles are sourced. However, for some logical ideas such as 'the sky is blue' we don't insist on notability. Likewise, we automatically assume notability for all human settlements if they are proven to exist or have existed. Even modern day larger housing estates, or named neigbourhoods such as Sherrard's Green get a mention. VCH, the Domesday Book, OS maps, and civil or ecclesiastical registers are more than sufficient. There is no need to merge articles, even short ones, if they are at least a stub and Wikilinked to each other. The analogy here is that we would not merge baked beans and toast to Beans on toast even if some of the information is duplicated. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. I would draw your attention to WP:PAGEDECIDE which discusses whether a notable topic should have its own article or not, and to WP:PERMASTUB which says that permanently-minimal stub articles with no prospect of expansion are indeed, and contrary to your assertion, better merged with larger ones. Even if one adds more about local transport and whatnot, it all applies equally to all three parishes, if not to Longdon alone, so the other two articles can never be more than 99% duplicates of Longdon material and there is another policy/guideline somewhere about avoiding that. Consequently, I find the relevance of your arguments hard to justify. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

List of public art in Worcestershire

Please populate List of public art in Worcestershire; see [1] for a guide. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Feckenham Forest

It'd be great to have some feedback on the Feckenham Forest page which I've been developing over the last few years, on and off. While I have a bit more material to add, it's nearly as complete as I'm likely to get it so it'd be great to know what needs improvement from this project's point of view. Jim Killock (talk) 09:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Malvern, Worcestershire

- now listed (26 Nv 2016) as a Featured article candidate and waiting for the review process to begin. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Worcester, Worcestershire

Hi Guys, I am slowly, very slowly, writing pages on Worcester Industries, research is difficult and I'm not too good at writing to Wiki standards let alone Wiki code.Ianmurray5

• Dents Gloves
• Fownes Gloves
• Metal Box The Metal Box company, London Road
• MECO Mining Engineering Co., Bromyard Road, Worcester
• McKenzie & Holland Signal Engineers, Shrub Hill, Worcester - Being researched by Ianmurray5
• Dutons Signal Engineers, Shrub Hill, Worcester
• Worcester Locomotive Company, Shrub Hill, Worcester
• GWR Coach Building Factory, Shrub Hill, Worcester

Anyone fancy a go at researching and writing these..... or helping me... Ianmurray5

Alley & MacLellan Ltd - Still working on this one, help splitting the Glasgow parent company from the Worcester one would be useful. just found a document detailing a UK trade visit to America c1950 with a few Worcester people from this company attending.Ianmurray5 (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion Invitation WP:WORCS Barnstar.

Discussion Invitation.

Dear participants of the Project! : @Kudpung, GyroMagician, DonBarton, Loganberry, Nev1, Leonig Mig, Petepetepetepete, Wotnow, PBS, Hkandy, Abacchus1974, Mhygelle, Bellow558, Malpensilo, and Malevan: you are invited to participate in the discussion regarding Worcestershire Project Barnstar. Please, have a look at Wikipedia Awards talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wikipedia_Awards and if you will see WORCS Barnstar representation, as a good one, explain in couple of phrases — why and give your support. Thank you.Chris Oxford (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to discuss separate local government district article for Redditch

I would appreciate some input on Talk:Redditch#Article for town and an article for the district. About half of the area covered by the district is a rural area outside the town, so I believe the two should not be treated as synonymous. — Dukwon (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Escape of Charles II from Worcester to White Ladies

I am hoping to add more detail of the first night after the battle of Worcester about the escape of Charles II and would appreciate others thoughts. Please see Talk:Escape of Charles II#Flight from Worcester to White Ladies -- PBS (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)