User talk:DankJae/Archives/2024/January

Two new Wales related templates

Hi @DankJae, just to let you know that I've created these two new topic navigational boxes:

[[Template:Art of Wales]] and [[Template:Michelin stars in Wales]] if you're interested in adding them to the appropriate articles.

Thank you very much, Titus Gold (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

You can use {{tl}} for them btw, so {{Welsh art}} and {{Michelin stars in Wales}}. Will link the former, may be the latter. DankJae 15:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@Titus Gold, added the Michelin one to all those linked, been reserved adding Welsh art, added it to all of them linked aside ones like Celtic art and some of the galleries which seem to be mainly museums or arts centres rather than art galleries. May reconsider again, although if the article is mainly on the building or it being more of a museum than an art gallery, not exactly sure if a specifically art template is needed. DankJae 21:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Any more help on sidebars @ me

Hi @DankJae If you have any reccomendations for sidebars, feel free to disscuss it on my page! Trainrobber66 (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@Trainrobber66, will consider, although I have no (rest of) UK recommendations I can think of right now (having a slow Wales spree of templates rn), although please try to avoid duplication, if a sidebar version of an existing template is needed I am happy to try and make it convertible. Thanks for {{National Trails}} (the first one I noticed because it has "Wales"), although raised a Scottish question at its talk. Thanks! DankJae 22:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

👍ok! [[User:Trainrobber66|trainrobber]] (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you wanted to merge the sidebar of the UK national parks and navbox together? If so, feel free to go right ahead! trainrobber 20:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Trainrobber66, ok, thanks for the thumbs up! The two were practically the same, and I think a merge is possible.

I may raise others for merges if it is do-able and they're identical (link-wise). So just a heads up! if I stumble on another one (not sure how many you've made).

Nonetheless, I do like sidebars, although not sure of the wider consensus for them, if they stay and there seems to be no issues, then thanks for your work! Although I think sidebars have to be smaller (link-wise), so possibly missing a lot of links if it were a navbox, so some may be justified to keep separate. DankJae 20:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok trainrobber 20:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Wales

Hi there DankJae, I've been fixing around some articles and just came up with the template Motorways and Trunk Roads in Wales that was causing some errors in some of them but I just fixed it so don't worry Yolandasantiagoo (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Yolandasantiagoo, what errors? Plus consider WP:NAVIMAGES do not add images. Further more Category:Wales transport navigational boxes are under Category:Wales transport templates and Category:Wales navigational boxes so adding those are redundant. DankJae 15:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

When reading the articles that template is in, it showed the whole code and not the format but thanks to you and an edition of mine they are all perfect now! Yolandasantiagoo (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Yolandasantiagoo, I did notice a stray <noinclude> in the wrong place in the template, so that may have been the issue?

Removing state=collapsed won't do anything unless it is the only navbox on the article (in which it would uncollapse it), as it automatically collapses if there are two navboxes, but if there are two navboxes the code is a bit redundant for collapsing. DankJae 15:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

yeah, could have perfectly been that, and also, there are some articles I am reviewing now that sometimes it's okay the format sometimes isn't, and also 90% of them the format the template was written was the state=collapsed so that collapsed + the other collapsed on the template article may have caused the problem Yolandasantiagoo (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Yolandasantiagoo Possibly, but happy its solved now! Your endless self-reverts on the template became confusing. DankJae 15:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

yeah, also to me when i was looking which one was okay and which one wasn't hahaha. Thx for helping Yolandasantiagoo (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Autopatrol?

Hey! Nice articles. Have you considered asking for the Wikipedia:Autopatrolled right? I've only skimmed some of your newer pages but you seem to create a lot of articles and redirects that follow policy and are done well. It doesn't change much about editing; your pages would just show up in search engines sooner and they wouldn't need to be reviewed manually. Just a thought! originalmess^talk 09:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Originalmess, yes I am aware of Autopatrol, just never felt confident that I'd pass it, still learning the odd thing or two, especially on new types of articles, but if you believe I'd meet it and/or if there is a NPP backlog then it may encourage me to submit a request to reduce the load. We'll see. DankJae 12:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Architectural details

Just to say I understand your reasoning re Cefn Viaduct and Wynnstay Arms Hotel, Ruabon now, but I think it's a shame to delete cited material. Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Dave.Dunford, did it reluctantly, but with limited sources and personal knowledge (in architecture) there is little room for paraphrasing. I do hope, as I create articles in the area, that I stumble on a new source that also discusses those two structures' architecture in their own words (and better more general wording), in which I can mix with Cadw, with more distinctly paraphrased wording. But in the absence of that, removed as a precaution and added a link to Cadw directly, should readers be interested.

Unless someone who can read architectural jargon manages to re-add it! DankJae 20:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, DankJae. Thank you for your work on Grosvenor Lodge, Wrexham. TheLongTone, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

A very thorough description of this building, well done

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|TheLongTone}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

TheLongTone (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi DankJae, I hope you're keeping well. Just a thought on this page. I'm spending a LOT of time at the moment wading through a CCI case. Won't bore you with the backstory, but it's made me sensitive to possible CV. One of the areas where the editor involved got into difficulty was in an over-reliance on building descriptions from British Listed Buildings, Historic England and Cadw. It can be challenging because their descriptions tend to be packed with architectural terms which are very hard/close to impossible to paraphrase. Looking at this article, I'm seeing some quite close paraphrasing, particularly to the Cadw entry. One to watch. All the very best. KJP1 (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@KJP1, Hi yes fully understand, is the remedy to remove most of it? In the end, for many listed buildings this is the only source? DankJae 22:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@KJP1, Greatly cut it back, yes very difficult to paraphase, felt uncomfortable sticking too close, and tbh why doesn't Earwig work for Cadw? (gives a false sense of confidence) although if it still an issue I may have to consider deleting a few articles? Unfortunately. I would love to write more on actual historic buildings but many do not have many sources, leaving only the most WP:RECENTISM or viral ones feasible. DankJae 22:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Yep - It's hard. What I do with the CCI is to cut'n paste the Cadw/HE/BLBO entry and slap it directly below the article text. The similarities then leap out at you. Try this with Cadw and Grosvenor Lodge, as I did. But you're quite right, the sources are very limited, often with Pevsner as the only supplementary, and how can you paraphrase "Italianate/ashlar/dressings/quoins/modillion cornice/porch/segmental arch/piers/pilasters/fluting/Corinthian/cornice/balustrade/parapet/architrave/scalloped/tympana/balconet/bracket/lintel/string course/bay window/moulded brackets" etc.? I think there are a few approaches. First I tend to strip out all of the adjectives/qualifiers, "deep/fine/squared" etc. which HE/CADW tend to use. Then I try a re-ordering, so that the article content doesn't follow the order of the source content too closely. Then I try to simplify the architectural terminology; e.g. tympanum ain't simple, even with a blue link, for any but a specialist audience, so perhaps replace it with "a decorative panel above the door". Lastly, yes, I do tend to include less than the Cadw/HE entry will have. They're writing as a journal of record, really for a specialist audience, and tend to go into quite a lot more detail than our generalist audience needs. Hope this is helpful. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@KJP1, when writing it I really did not understand their terms, which is why I had no choice but to stick close to it (preventing WP:SYNTH) as I have no other source justifying my rewording. So decided the remove around 40%-80% of Cadw sourced stuff instead to be safe and added a link to Cadw directly. Plus the very technical wording seemed very complex for audiences. Will try to re-order it a bit, wish Earwig works for it. DankJae 22:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@KJP1, tbh before finding out about WP:GEOFEAT, which I believe presumes notability for listed buildings, I had focused on fleshing out articles as much as possible to avoid tags or AfDs (as not autopatrolled), but tbh writing the architectural stuff is the hardest and most annoying part, so tbh happy to see this process go. DankJae 22:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Don't be hard on yourself! You've done a superb job of increasing the coverage of Welsh buildings, and I agree, if they're listed, they're notable. It's true, they are not the easiest to write, as the sourcing's so limited, and the terminology can be a bit technical. But all the more reason for those that can, as you can, to try to give them the coverage they deserve. Take care. KJP1 (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Its fine, it has always been an issue at the back of my mind, but as I now know they're presumed notable, I feel that I can now correct it. DankJae 23:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

"The house is built in red brick and is of two storeys. The windows, arranged in a 1-3-1 pattern, are embellished with ashlar dressings. They are square-headed on the ground floor, with bay windows and with balconettes above, and rounded-headed on the first, topped with decorative niches in a scallop- shell design. The roof is of slate and its cornice is supported by modillion brackets. Gummow described the style as "Anglo-Italian",<ref name="Cadw GL" /><ref name="Coflein" /> a popular style in England and Wales in the mid-19th century, having been made fashionable by Queen Victoria and Prince Albert at Osborne House.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/osborne/history-and-stories/osborne-style/|title=The 'Osborne Style': From Naples to Melbourne|publisher=[[English Heritage]]|access-date=25 January 2024}}</ref>

The main frontage faces Regent Street while the entrance is on Grosvenor Street, through a segmental archway set in a large porch, with double doors and a ballustraded parapet above. There is a service wing to the side and a later three-storey tower."<ref name="Cadw GL" /><ref name="Coflein" />

Had a go myself and it's not easy! If there's anything of use, splice it in. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 07:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Great try! be free to add it, I am not knowledgeable in architecture, so I wouldn't like try re-phrasing it myself as essentially guesswork, especially with few sources. But you seem much more knowledgeable in it, so great attempt! DankJae 12:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Aren't the CADW descriptions under Crown Copyright and available to use under Open Government Licence? See [1] and [2]. Sample licence terms:[3] Rupples (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Rupples, I hoped that too,[4] but the descriptions aren't exactly on cadw.gov.wales but another website/server (cadwpublic-api.azurewebsites.net), so technically not the same website. Which lacks the mention of OGL so assumed not. But open to a wider discussion or someone contact Cadw themselves. DankJae 20:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

On the CADW map, the Terms & Conditions one ticks before using the site state the descriptions of the historic assets are on OGL with attribution; this would apply to the individual listings notwithstanding that they're stored on a separate website. It then gives a recommended attribution format to use for direct copying/reproduction. I think you've done the right thing removing some of the detailed architectural terms. The trouble is, it can be difficult to know what are a building's significant features from the descriptions alone. Hope it doesn't put you off creating articles on listed and other buildings; I enjoy reading them. I've made some grammatical changes to wording on for example the Wrexham Police Station (1973–2020) and Wynnstay Arms Hotel, Ruabon. Trust it doesn't come across I'm nitpicking your writing style — you've done the hard work creating the article — I just try and provide some finishing touches. Rupples (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Rupples, you referring to the following statement?

The descriptive information displayed on Cof Cymru - National Historic Assets of Wales is available for use under an Open Government License (OGL). When using the above data under the Open Government License, you must include the following attribution statement: -

Designated Historic Asset Descriptive Information, The Welsh Historic Environment Service (Cadw), DATE [the date that you received the data from Cadw], licensed under the Open Government Licence http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/

- cadwpublic-ui.azurewebsites.net ​
If that's the case then I guess it's under OGL, still uses very technical language the average reader would not understand. DankJae 10:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Rupples, It's not putting me off lol, the Cadw bit is the most demanding bit, because it is in such technical language. Be free to re-write some bits of any article, as most of these articles I wrote at probably midnight. The police station isn't listed btw, that's why it was demolished and surprisingly mentioned in multiple sources, hence decided to make it. The Lidl that replaced it is fine. DankJae 10:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that it. Rupples (talk) 10:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

First off, sincere apologies if I have misunderstood the copyright status of the Cadw listings and thanks to User:Rupples for flagging it. I have to say that I've never actually investigated it and simply assumed that they were not copiable in their entirety. That said, I think we're in agreement that lifting them in toto wouldn't be best practice. I think they're just too technical for our audience, even if we litter them with bluelinks, which doesn't make for a great reader experience. As a general rule, I find the language needs simplifying and the content needs raising to a higher level of detail. Where I'm also in agreement with User:Rupples is in wanting to see more Dank building articles. KJP1 (talk) 13:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@KJP1, @Rupples, well I made Pant-yr-Ochain, so not stopping (making articles) lol DankJae 00:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

One new template

Hi @DankJae, I've made one new navigational template, "Template:Traditional and bank holidays of Wales" that you may want to add to the relevant pages. Thanks! Titus Gold (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)