Welcome, CORREZE! I have a few questions right off the bat for you.
(1) Would you prefer to be called Correze, or is there something else you had in mind? I would prefer if you called me Brambleberry, as "Brambleberry of RiverClan" is a keyboard-full.
(2) Do you have any specific questions right away (not counting the one you asked on my talk page, which will be covered below), or are you lost on pretty much everything?
(3) Is there anything that you feel you particularly understand and don't think we'll have to cover?
(4) What kind of picture would you like on your adoption page? (see the OcelotHod, Ladytwentytwo, Missionedit, and Yashowardhani pages to get an idea of what I mean).
Don't feel as if you have to sign your name; this isn't a talk page.è
You generally don't have to seek approval for an article. Since Wikipedia is an ever-changing and ever-growing project, any article you write is bound to change with new information, so pretty much the only two requirements for a brand-new article are that it be notable (which the history of a major London building certainly is) and that it have sufficient reliable sources (which we will go over later, but once again, you should be able to find quite a bit due to the popularity of what the article you're writing is). One thing you have to be wary of when you're writing an article is to include more than what is already mentioned. For example, I would make sure that you include more in an article about the history of Buckingham Palace than what is listed at the "history" section of the Buckingham Palace article.
By the way, when you do create that article, you would go to he history section of the Buckingham Palace article and add a hatnote that goes {{Main|History of Buckingham Palace}}, letting people know that more information is on that article.
I'm happy with Correze. Buckingham Palace, by the way, was what is known in English slang as 'a for-instance', so I won't be tackling the definitive history of the Queen's house! I've got one or two other architectural irons in the fire, though. No, I'm pretty happy with the Wikisystem; a lot less phased than I was 10 days ago (I very nearly turned round and walked away!). Have you ever seen as English movie called 'IF' (starring Roddy McDowell)? It's generally regarded by film buffs as the architypal depiction of the English public school system: arcane and inpenitrable (?sp) rules and regulations everywhere you turn. Ten days ago I thought I was back in an English public school (again!). The one thing I'm having problems with at the moment is images. And if I'm going to be writing interesting stuff about buildings, good images are going to make a heck of a difference. But they have to be my pictures which I have to assisgn unreservedly in perpetuity to Wikimedia. Which is a pretty big ask.
Finally, your question about a picture to adorn my Adoption page. Would an image of Kim Novak be breaking the house rules?
No house rules to be broken, my friend. Unfortunately, I haven't seen the movie yet, but I plan to... sometime. My schedule keeps me busy enough that I won't see many movies at a time. Bleh. Due to my inability to take good pictures and then post them online, I generally don't have a lot of experience with Wikimedia Commons, excepting burrowing through to see if they have pictures on equestrians I'm writing about. Of course, I generally pick up things very quickly and can help you down the road.
A good way to start our specific adoption process would be for me to guide you through the process of creating another page. I know you've already created one, but with this one I can get an idea of your contributions and I can teach you about the Wikiprocess. Anything you have in mind specifically?
Yup. There's an extremely inferior Wiki entry entitled WORCESTER LIBRARY (ok, I know it doesn't sound a terribly exciting subject!) which is only six or so lines long and tells you practically nothing. However, I've been inside it (it only opened a few months ago) and I have to say it's one of the most awe-inspiring interiors I've ever experienced...and certainly the finest public library I know of. So I plan to 'enhance' it architecturally, if that's all right by you. Or did your suggestion above indicate that you would rather - for tutorial purposes - I started with a 'clean slate'?
Thanks for the pic of Kim Novak. To appreciate her all-too-short Hollywood career, start with 'Bell, Book and Candle' then move onto 'Vertigo'.
Yikes! I looked at the article, and there is quite a bit to be done. One of the first things I noticed was the poor formatting of the first sentence. Here is what it should look like:
Worcester Library, called "The Hive" colloquially, is a golden-coloured library in the center of Worcester, England.
To achieve the bold text, you would put three individual apostrophes to either side of the phrase you want bolded, and to add "internal links" (links that link within Wikipedia), you add two brackets to either side of what you want to link to.
Another thing that's missing is an infobox. Infoboxes are handy little things that you put, when editing, at the top of a page, though it will appear to the right. In this case you would use Template:Infobox building. You would find where it says "Usage", copy what's in the gray box, and paste that at the beginning. Then fill in everything you can and delete the extras. That would also be a good opportunity to show a picture of it.
Brambleberry:
I'm on the case. Yes, shocking, isn't it? How did it ever 'pass muster'? Even 'coloquially' is incorrect: the building's official name is The Hive ffs! Pictures are going to be a major problem (as I've already discovered at 'Peterchurch'!) so I'm going to take my own. Perhaps in Tutorial No 6 you'll tell me how I get them on the page? May be out of contact for a couple of days (domestic duties!) but will let you know when I've been to The Hive. Oh yes, one final question: when I sit down and start writing a new version, do I: a) put the text onto the exiting entry?; b) start afresh on my page?; or c) start afresh in The Sandbox? Correze92.6.140.106 (talk) 06:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I understand business. Mondays I'm very rarely on and it's a miracle I'm on now. As for writing a new version, it depends on if you want to make little changes at a time or change the whole whing at once and copy-and-paste. For the former, you would change each chunk on the existing entry. For the latter, you would start afresh in your sandbox, which would be found at User:CORREZE/sandbox. You very rarely, if ever, use your user page for rewriting an article.
Hi Brambleberry:
I'm back at my computer, having taken the train to Worcester yesterday and spent half a day with the building's Project Man (very helpful and thrilled that the building may make it into Wikipedia). It really is an awe-inspiring interior - quite cathedral-like in its utter calmness. I've read you last set of instructions and have created a complete new 1100-word article, which I intend to put into my Sandbox tomorrow morning, complete with links. Can I leave the creation of an Infobox until you've checked my text? It should be there circa 11.00hrs GMT.
Final question: when I've put the whole text into the Sandbox, do I just leave it there to be collected / vetted / moved? Or is there a command which I click on which says: "Now go and park yourself in Wikipedia? Regards, Correze.
Sadly, there's no magic button to move text. Instead, you delete all tlhe text in the original article and copy-and-paste the sandbox text into the spot where the old text used to be. It's important to use an edit summary here to say "Completely rewriting".
Brambleberry:
Phew, sounds fraught with potential calamities! Sod's Law says in the middle of cutting-and-pasting the new Hive text, I'll hit the wrong key and it'll all fly off into the ether! Think I'll just 'park' it in the Sandbox for you to take a look-see (before your short break next week). Then you can send me instructions again. Also, is an Info Box essential, or do some Editors add them as a sort of typographical 'flourish'? CCORREZE (talk) 09:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Fortunately, if you mess up and totally destroy a page, you can go to "View history" and press "Compare selected revisions." Go to the latest one and find the date. There should be (undo) next to it, with (edit) between them. Press the undo and explain that you messed up when rewriting. Crisis averted! Well, not really averted, more like undone. As for an infobox, it is not completely essential, but it is a handy little box that can sometimes help people with what they need to know. For example, {{Infobox dog breed}} tells readers where the dog came from, other names, traits, and how they are classified by major kennel clubs, which can help readers that would otherwise have to sift through information.
Thanks Brambleberry. Enjoy the Garfield Assassination celebrations. The Hive should be 'built' by the time you get back. CorrezeCORREZE (talk) 07:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Welcome back Brambleberry! Are you able to visit the Correze Sandbox 'cause my Hive article is all but finished (one stat awaited). Let me know if you think it's too subjective. Additionally, I've saved the following Wikiqueries for you:- 1) what exactly is a 'stub'? If I can see ways to improve / expand / enhance a stub, am I permitted to do so without seeking permission? 2) Is there a Wikietiqueete about making such improvements: do I have to 'flag up' my additions? 3) What exactly are 'citations' and what is the keyboard command for creating same? CorrezeCORREZE (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not "back" yet, per se, as I'm still on vacation but can get on the computer for a few minutes a day. First I'll answer your queries.
1) A stub is an article that is too short to provide sufficient understanding of the topic. Sometimes there are "Permastubs", or stubs that will never be more than that because there isn't a lot of information on them, like many small mammals. There is a major "rule" on Wikipedia saying to Be bold, meaning that you generally don't need permission (there are some cases when you have to make an edit request, but you shouldn't run into that now that you're an autoconfirmed user) to edit an article.
2) In the little box where it says "Edit summary" you should write what you're doing at all times. For example, if you found information about the Moroccan jird pertaining to its diet, you would put "Adding dietary information" in the edit summary. If you feel like the article is no longer a stub after your additions, you can do two things. First, if there's a stub tag underneath it, like {{Meriones-stub}}, remove it. Second, go to the talk page. There are generally at least one "WikiProject" tags (which we'll talk about later), saying that it falls under a specific topic. They will have labelled it "Stub". Edit the talk page, find where it says |class=Stub and replace "Stub" with "Start". It's important to capitalize as well.
3) Citations are a form of references, and we'll go over them later. There isn't a keyboard command for them, but look at the bar above the edit box. Find where it says "Cite". Click on that. Now see where it says "Templates". Click on that and pick one of them. Fill out the information in the boxes and press "Insert", and a citation is inserted in that area, already formatted. We'll go over what you do if it's something different later. Then you add a "References" section at the bottom and put {{Reflist}}.
Now, onto your sandbox. You should include a lead that comes before the topics, at least one sentence. I suggest this:
The Hive, also known as Worcester Library, is a golden-coloured library in Worcester, England.
Try to only include information pertaining to The Hive, which would remove the whole first section (which is also subject to the subjective issue you raised). I would also try to reword the sentence about it being very ambitious and add a citation to that. Perhaps this:
The Hive, situated in the English cathedral city of Worcester, is widely considered to be the most ambitious library and archival resource centres to be created in the United Kingdom.[1]
"Had already received the rare distinction of winning the RIBA Stirling Prize" → "won the RIBA Stirling Prize, the award considered the most prestigious in architecture,"
I know that you're writing in British English, but at the same time I noticed a few typos, such as "onece" when you meant "once".
The popularity section could be written like this:
The Hive received 471,816 visitors in its first six months of operation, an indication that it would reach its target one million visitors in the first year.[1] With 94.5 hours a week of operation, The Hive has the longest weekly hours of any library in the United Kingdom.[2] To keep The Hive running for these long hours, a maximum of fifty staff members are on duty.[3] The popularity of The Hive can be compared to the Peckham Library, which greatly contributed to an increase of 292,000 annual English book loans when it opened.[4]
I have placed the "dummy refs" (references that don't link to anything) in places that need a reference.
External appearance could look like this:
The Hive has an irregular external appearance with its gold-coloured cladding and a roof profile formed by several upward-facing "cones".[1] (Only include the ships' funnels part if you can find a published source agreeing with you; I'm not putting it here). These "cones" were built to mimic the outline of the popular Malvern Hills.[2] 60x60cm alloy "tiles" made from recycled copper cover more than 11,000km² of the walls and roof, and these tiles were fixed by the same cladding specialists who reclad the golden dome of The Rock of Jerusalem.[3] (Are you sure you don't mean the Dome of the Rock?) The cladding that covers the building's horizontal facades is interrupted by large areas of glazing so as to let as much natural light as possible into the interior.[4]
Try not to use parentheses. If you want to link to something, you use brackets like this: [[...]]. Try to reword anything that has one set of parentheses in it, such as "The basement level (housing..." could be "The basement level, which houses..."
Remove the "dramatic" in the phrase "a dramatic central staircase".
"The environmental brief given to the designers and their consultants was that a 50% renewable figure had to be achieved for The Hive - a hugely ambitious target for what was planned as being a very busy building." → "The environmental brief given to the designers and their consultants was that a 50% renewable figure had to be achieved for The Hive, which would be difficult considering the planned popularity of the library."
"The unexpected popularity of The Hive and its meeting of challenging energy performance target, may prove to be a rare UK example of this 'synergy'." → "The unexpected popularity of The Hive and its meeting of the energy performance target may lead the library to be one of few United Kingdom examples of synergy." That's the best way I can word it, but it may not be able to be fixed, in which case the whole last paragraph in "Green issues" should be removed.
Well, that's pretty much everything. When you fix that, we can start with the infobox.
Brambleberry: Wow - a lot of homework for me! It's Easter weekend, so I'll try to have in finished by Sunday night gmt. Thanks for your patience.
Sunday evening. We had a major computer malfunction in the household, which has kept me off the keyboard for the whole day. Have just finished taking in all your suggested changes. Only puzzlers are why the Paris Bibliothèque (para 2) and National Trust (para 6) have turned red! Anyway, when you're back, let me know if you're happy with the MkII version before we proceed to the creation of the Info Box. I have some general observations about Wikiwriting, with special reference to architecture, but think I'll save them for another day when I'm less bushed. Correze.
If a link is red instead of blue, it means that there's no page for that. For the first one, you might mean Bibliothèque nationale de France, and for the second one you used the wrong conjunction. It's or Natural Beauty, not and Natural Beauty. You caught most of the mistakes, though Forest of Dean still need brackets instead of parentheses, and remove the heading for the first paragraph to create the lead. In addition, you need references. A minor thing: you don't need to capitalize the first letter in a link to get it to link there (except in the case of a proper noun, in which case you should always capitalize).
Brambleberry: MkIII ready for inspection (corrections!). Correze.
This screencast walks through how to use the various features of RefTools.Much better! I made a few little fixes of capitalization and layout for you to look at, and then there are the inline citations. You have a list of references, but you need to put in inline citations. This is much like parenthetical documentation in a paper. I have given you a video to the right that should help show you how to insert these inline citations.
Brambleberry: 1) more computer malfunctions here today; 2) my (ancient) computer refuses to let me view your video clip about creating inline citations, so is there a Wiki page I should visit?; 3) at the top of my Sandbox it says: "If you are writing an article, and are ready to request its creation, click here". So if I do click on that, will my text be magically transported to a proper Wiki page? Correze
I got the clip from Wikipedia:RefToolbar/2.0. The pictures are probably going to be the most helpful. As for the sandbox, the answer is no. It means that your article will be submitted to Articles for creation, which is where brand-new users send their work, which doesn't already have a Wiki page, to be reviewed. Since you're just rewriting it, you would move your text to Worcester Library and put "Rewriting" in the edit summary below the edit box.
I'm going to have to do without the video-clip tutorial 'cause my anti-virus system keeps screaming warnings not to download it! However, I've read the page and I think I understand the system. On the bottom of my Sandbox I've put a line of bold type saying 'CUT-AND-PASTE SAMPLE TEXT'. Now just take me very slowly through how I move that line to 'Worcester Library'. Then if I successfully complete that manouvre (?sp) without 'dropping' it, I'll delete the old text; move my article; then add: "Complete re-write" in the Edit Summary box. Ok? CorrezeCORREZE (talk) 04:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
There's really no magic to moving text. You simply cut it from the page it's on, go to the page that you want it to be on, and paste. Just like if you were moving it between two documents. The other good thing is that if you do "drop" it, you have the text saved on your sandbox and so can reaccess it.
Brambleberry: The final version of The Hive is now in place for you to run a professional eye over. Only small point: it has appeared under 'Worcester Library' because you told me to delete all the earlier copy, though I'd much rather it appeared under The Hive. Can I ask the administrators to re-title it? Do I simply post my suggestion in the Teahouse? With your agreement, I'd like to move on to Tutorial No 2, for which I have saved up several questions for you about the length of articles (I've got one two examples for you to take a look at). CorrezeCORREZE (talk)
It looks good, but I had to put two notes up top, only one that you can see. You can see the no footnotes one, saying that you have references, but there are no inline citations. The other one is to use British English, and that's hidden. As for moving it, you would put this on the talk page:
== Requested move ==
{{subst:Requested move|The Hive (library)|That is the official name of the building.}}
You can, of course, fix up the last part to be your own style, but that's the jist of it. If enough people agree with you, it will be moved by an administrator. The bonus of this is that a "redirect" is created when it is moved, meaning that anyone who puts in "Worcester Library" will end up at The Hive. I had to include (library) because there are multiple articles called "The Hive", including one called "The Hive (place)".
Brambleberry: Thanks, I'll post that request for retitlying on the Talk page. I understand (and accept) the criticism about 'British English'. Can you take a look at these Wikipages: Jack Hobbs (famous English cricketer); English architect Charles Holden; and your very own Frank Lloyd Wright. Which would you say is the model article length, content and referencing which I should try to emulate? I'm now off on a trip to London for two days (I live 100+ miles from our capital), back on Thursday. I admire your sang-froid and appreciate all your support. Correze.
I would say Charles Holden, and looking at them reminds you that we still need an infobox for The Hive. I recommend Template:Infobox library.
I'd reached the same conclusion; in fact, I'd thought: "I'm going to aim to produce articles which are as 'readable' as the Holden one. By contrast, Frank Lloyd Wright's just goes on and on and on (would that be because so many American devotees have wanted to add the odd paragraph?). I'll get on with researching the Info Box task. No response yet (on the TALK page) to my request for a retitling of The Hive. C
The article on Holden is what's known as a "featured article", meaning that it can't get much better than that. Jack Hobbs is a "good article", which is almost as good, and then Wright is a "C-class article", which means it's pretty decent. There's actually a whole chart about that:
A featured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.
It is:
well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; and
a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.
Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate.
Professional, outstanding, and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information.
No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible.
Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
Comprehensiveness.
(a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items.
(c) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists and includes at minimum eight items; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article.
Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
(a) Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked.
Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.
Professional standard; it comprehensively covers the defined scope, usually providing a complete set of items, and has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about those items.
No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible.
The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been examined by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the A-Class criteria:
Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:Article development. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as a featured article candidate. See the A-Class assessment departments of some of the larger WikiProjects (e.g. WikiProject Military history).
Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject would typically find nothing wanting.
Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style problems may need solving. WP:Peer review may help.
it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (though not necessarily equalling) the quality of a professional publication.
Some editing by subject and style experts is helpful; comparison with an existing featured article on a similar topic may highlight areas where content is weak or missing.
The article meets all of the B-Class criteria. It is mostly complete and does not have major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards.
The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but does not need to be of the standard of featured articles. The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.
The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher.
A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed. Expert knowledge may be needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines.
The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup.
More detailed criteria
The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements, or need editing for clarity, balance, or flow.
Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study.
Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems.
An article that is developing but still quite incomplete. It may or may not cite adequate reliable sources.
More detailed criteria
The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas. The article has one or more of the following:
A useful picture or graphic
Multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic
A subheading that fully treats an element of the topic
Multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article
Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more.
Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use.
A very basic description of the topic. Meets none of the Start-Class criteria.
Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. Readers probably see insufficiently developed features of the topic and may not see how the features of the topic are significant.
Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. The best solution for a Stub-class Article to step up to a Start-class Article is to add in referenced reasons of why the topic is significant.
Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list or set index article, which is an article that contains primarily a list, usually consisting of links to articles in a particular subject area.
There is no set format for a list, but its organization should be logical and useful to the reader.
Lists should be lists of live links to Wikipedia articles, appropriately named and organized.
Brambleberry: It's Sunday, so can't get started on the library's info box until tomorrow as there are two stats I have to check with the WCC media office. Thanks for the grading chart. Interesting that Holden is ranked as "featured": had you spotted that 30% of all the texts' inline citations are to Eitan Karol? Could he also be the author of the Wikiarticle? Small query about referencing facts in an article:- I tracked down the number of cladding tiles on The Hive (16,000) by contacting the German manufacturers who then put me onto the company who fixed them and they came back with the 16,000 stat. I added it as a minor edit. But I can hardly have an inline citation reading "Figure supplied by Underwoods of Leicester" can I? In other words, is it only facts published in books and magazines which rank for inline citation? Correze
Well, it can be on a reputable online source as well, but it must be published. If it is not published it is qualified as original research and that's not good.
Point taken about 'original research'. Semes I'm going to have to change the habits of a lifetime. As an architectural journalist I've always made a point of visiting the building - though now appreciate that Wiki articles are no place for subjective impressions. However, I tend to glean any facts about the building from a reliable source on site, often cross-checking with a second source. So does this mean that I should delete that 16,000 stat until such times as someone writes a technical article about the building and quotes the number of tiles? Second question: metric or imperial (or a mixture)? Correze
Yes to the delete question. As for the second question, it depends on the article. You should always use both, but which one comes first depends on whether or not the article is written in American English. If it is, then imperial. Otherwise, metric. You can do both with a "convert" template. For example, if you were to convert nine meters into feet and wanted abbreviations instead of the full word, you would put {{convert|9|m|ft|abbr=on}}, and you would get 9 m (30 ft).
Hi Brambleberry: Apologies for my lengthy absence (abroad in Europe). Am briefly back home, but travelling again in July. While I've been away the request for re-naming Worcester Library seems to have been ignored. Why is this? The building is called The Hive; it has a sign by its front entrance announcing 'The Hive'; it has a dedicated website entitled The Hive; and this morning, it was reported in every UK national newspaper that The Hive had won one of the UK's premier architectural awards (just as I predicted in my name-change suggestion last April)! CORREZE
Welcome back! I would like to help you, but I can't find the move request at all. Where did you place it? öBrambleberryofRiverClan 15:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC). In User talk: CORREZE; last item (Requested move). A second gripe: several rather petty unflattering references to the library's interior have been inserted (end of POPULARITY section). I'd guess by university students working in the building. Does this qualify as vandalism or can anybody drop anything into someone else's article? CORREZE
The reason your requested move hasn't been heeded is because it should be put on Talk:Worcester Library, not on your talk page. As for the references, they aren't properly formatted and shouldn't be all put at the same place, but they aren't vandalism. Nobody "owns" an article and everyone is free to add something useful to it. References are always useful as long as they link to the right thing and not to a spam or porn site.
Point taken (about what constitutes vandalism). I've also re-posted my re-titling request, as directed. CORREZE
Brambleberry: I'mm off on my travels again shortly (4 July for two weeks), but there's one thing I'd like to set up before I go. Last weekend I visited a wonderful mansion (blt 1895) designed by the English architect Charles Voysey. Presently on Wiki, it barely gets a mention in his biog, whilst I believe that it is architecturally significant enough to warrant its own dedicated page. Can you just remind me: do I start work on creating the page on my Sandbox; do I post a request on the Talk page; or do I send an e-mail directly to the Administrators? CORREZECORREZE (talk) 05:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
For that one, I believe that you personally should start in your sandbox, and once you have it down, put a message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture to see if the Wikipedia community agrees with its notability. I'm going to remind you here to put in some actual references and inline citations. öBrambleberryofRiverClan 17:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Brambleberry: Will do as you suggest, though it may now have to wait until I return from a short trip to mainland Europe. CORREZECORREZE (talk) 06:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC). Hello again, Brambleberry - I'm back from my travels. Have made contact with the Wiki Worcestershire group who were rather sniffy about my idea of writing an article based on one house. They said that such a building's 'Notability' would need to be justified by copious references to it in architectural textbooks (which it doesn't have), so I think I'll drop the idea. Much messing about has happened to my Worcester Library article (I suspect students) and still no response to my very reasonable suggestion that the article should correctly be entitled 'The Hive'. CorrezeCORREZE (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you should drop a note on the talk page of WikiProject Architecture to let them know that there's a requested move for The Hive; that would get some buzz. öBrambleberryofRiverClan 22:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
OK, I'll try that. Thanx. CorrezeCORREZE (talk) 09:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Brambleberry: May I crave a favour? The main reason for my long silence here is because a very dear friend is seriously ill and is not expected to last for many more days. A real and personal tragedy for me. Her name is Stehenie McMillan and she has a short dedicated page on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, although her name is correctly spelt in the text, it is incorrectly spelt on the page's heading, and though I posted a request for a correction, nothing has been done! If you have the electronic facility to correct the typo, could you possibly do it for me asap? It's just that, should Stehenie pass on in the next few days, I guess the page will be getting lots of visits from people in the film world. CorrezeCORREZE (talk) 05:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Based on the number of edits, I could probably be bold and do so, but is her name "Stephenie" with a p or "Stehenie"? Brambleberry: It's Stephenie (as correctly spelt in the text). As of last night she's still hanging on in there, but we're not too hopeful that she'll be with us for many more days now. A truly amazing woman. You'll be a star if you can do it! CorrezeCORREZE (talk) 05:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC) 16.00hrs GMT: You're a star! CorrezeCORREZE (talk). Dear Stephenie died at 4.20hrs (GMT) this morning, so our/your correction was extremely timely. Thanx. I'm in touch with her family and would like to expand her page (my sort of 'memorial'). Do I just drop the edits in, or have I got to go through that whole Sandbox experience'? CorrezeCORREZE (talk) 09:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Just jump right in on this one, as long as you have the references to back it up. An obituary in a newspaper would be good for her death. öBrambleberryofRiverClan 13:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC). Good thought; there are likely to be several in the UK Press this week. When I've summarised them and dropped them on her page, I'll probably ask you to remind me of the keyboard symbols for those text and bottom-of-page references. CorrezeCORREZE (talk) 07:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC). Obviously there will be others, but yesterday's obit in the Los Angeles Times is rather fine. I've quoted Thomas Welsh, so can you just memding me a) how I add a bracketed numeral after the words "...to the peerage." and b) how I add a linked reference saying "Los Angeles Times; 21 August 2013 under References? CorrezeCORREZE (talk) 13:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC). Brambleberry: I see you (or some other kind soul) has already taken care of the LA Times attribution and even provided a link at the top of the page. Many thanks. CorrezeCORREZE (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC). Brambleberry: Don't know about you, but I think the Stephenie McMillan page is looking pretty good (her Memorial Service is in Norfolk on Friday). By the way - though I suppose we're not supposed to exchange non-Wiki stuff here - I was devastated to read about the Yosemite fire and see the still photos of those amazingly brave firefighters. I've been to the US three times and my visit to Yosemite was unquestionably the greatest thrill of all. CorrezeCORREZE (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC). Bram: Not heard from you for ages! C
Oh wow, I had no idea how cooped up I was with work! I can't believe it's been a month. I'll try to make time from now on, but it'll be tough; I'm really busy. Bram: Don't worry! I just wanted you to know how truly grateful I was to you for getting Stephenie's site sorted out before she died. Thanks again, I appreciated it so much (and lots of others in UK did too). CorrezeCORREZE (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
