User talk:Jaguar/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Bentworth DYK

Hello! Your submission of Bentworth at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!

That's the formal template over with! Hello, yes, this is a nice little DYK hook, the only problem is that the particular section that's used in the hook isn't cited, which is required. I'll check back later tomorrow if that's ok. Thanks! Rob (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, unfortunately, I've just checked the edit history, and it appears that it hasn't been 5x expanded in the last five days, but sortof over the whole of 2010, so probably doesn't meet the DYK criteria as being a "new" article. Rob (talk) 08:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I see. I have nominated the article once more and expanded it within the past five days now. Hopefully this time it will make it! Jaguar (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2011 WikiCup!

Hello, happy new year and welcome to the 2011 WikiCup! Your submissions' page can be found here and instructions of how to update the page can be found here and on the submissions' page itself. From the submissions' page, a bot will update the main scoresheet. Our rules have been very slightly updated from last year; the full rules can be found here. Please remember that you can only receive points for content on which you have done significant work in 2011; nominations of work from last year and "drive-by" nominations will not be awarded points. Signups are going to remain open through January, so if you know of anyone who would like to take part, please direct them to Wikipedia:WikiCup/2011 signups. The judges can be contacted on the WikiCup talk page, on their respective talk pages, or by email. Other than that, we will be in contact at the end of every month with the newsletter. If you want to stop or start receiving newsletters, please remove your name from or add your name to this list. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 12:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Bentworth

Hello! Your submission of Bentworth at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! jjron (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, great work on the article, but the rules state that you have to expand 'the prose' by 5x within the last five days. So let's say this was already 3,000 characters five days ago, you would have had to expand it to 15,000 characters. I'm no regular at DYK, but I think they're pretty strict on those rules. --jjron (talk) 16:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Wiltshire - needs-infobox

I've had to fix up your edits concerning the parameter needs-infobox, because (a) it wouldn't have worked in the way that you intended and (b) it was placing hundreds (665 at the last count) of pages into Category:Wiltshire articles needing infoboxes. This is the line containing the primary bug:

|infobox= {{{needs-infobox}}}

That denotes a mandatory named parameter (named parameters are the ones where you put |name=value). If a mandatory named parameter is omitted, funny things happen - in this case, it's taken as the value "yes".

The thing is, if you want |needs-infobox| to be a valid parameter without the use of an equals sign, this isn't a named parameter - it's a positional parameter, which in Template:WikiProject Wiltshire would be utilised like this:

|infobox= {{#ifeq:{{{1|}}}|needs-infobox|yes|no}}

However, hardly any WikiProject banners use positional parameters. To get it to work, I've had to modify the template so that the parameter usage is |needs-infobox=yes, which means that the line in question becomes

|infobox= {{{needs-infobox|}}}

which is an optional named parameter (the difference between mandatory and optional is the absence or presence of the pipe "|"). The full list of my changes is:

• In Talk:Alvediston, I've altered |needs-infobox}} to |needs-infobox=yes}}
• In Template:WikiProject Wiltshire, I put a pipe inside {{{needs-infobox|}}} so that omission of the parameter would pass a null value through to {{WPBannerMeta}}, which will then recognise the article as not needing an infobox. This has cleared the category down to Talk:Alvediston alone.
• In Template:WikiProject Wiltshire/doc, I amended it to that instead of infobox it shows needs-infobox, the parameter name, and I also amended it to show that the parameter usage should be |needs-infobox=yes. I then inserted a colon between the double square brackets and the word "Category:", so that the cat becomes linkable, instead of trying to place the doc page into that cat. As a non-essential edit, I've moved it into alphabetical position between listas and small (the parameter category goes last because it's extremely rarely used).
• In Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiltshire/To do, I've amended it to show that the parameter usage should be |needs-infobox=yes and also fixed your category link so that it doesn't try to edit the category page.

Following my fixes, {{WikiProject Wiltshire}} once again conforms to the normal pattern for needs-infobox in WikiProject banners, as seen in, for example, {{WikiProject Buses}}, {{WikiProject Rock music}}, {{WikiProject Toys}}.

If there are any talk pages other than Talk:Alvediston where you added |needs-infobox}}, you'll need to amend them to |needs-infobox=yes}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, as a separate issue, I also added a category to the category. You probably weren't to know that this was required. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, thank you so much for fixing all that! I was left with no idea that it was tagging 655 pages as I assumed that everything would work properly. I followed the {{WikiProject Aviation}}'s examples of using the 'needs-infobox' function but by how they use everything so differently from Wiltshire's template probably made it unable to work. Nethertheless now, I will begin tagging lots of articles with 'needs-infobox' status now the problem is fixed. Where would we be without you? Jaguar (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Mmm. I've looked at {{WikiProject Aviation}}, and it uses the |needs-infobox=yes form. Well, all sorted now. Thanks for the barnstar! --Redrose64 (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Burnett, Somerset

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Duncorn Hill

Thanks for starting the Duncorn Hill article. In the reference you titled "field investigations" (Rural area 6) the only mention I can find of Duncorn Hill says it is one of "numerous small rounded hills" (para 7.6.23) nothing about it being a Bronze/Iron age hill fort. Is it somewhere else in the document?— Rod ^talk 20:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. I had simply rearranged the wrong reference. It is in fact this this reference which says that the hill has been investigated in 1966 - the other ref had been placed in the wrong setence. I have rearranged them now, but the only that was the only reference where I could find that the hill had been investigated in 1966. I have also added a couple more to the article. Jaguar (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

As you will have seen from the article - the record of the 1966 survey found no evidence of Bronze of Iron Age work.— Rod ^talk 21:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 January newsletter

We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. Signups are now closed, and we have 129 listed competitors, 64 of whom will make it to round two. Congratulations to The Bushranger (submissions), who, at the time of writing, has a comfortable lead with 228 points, followed by Hurricanehink (submissions), with 144 points. Four others have over 100 points. Congratulations also go to Yellow Evan (submissions), who scored the first points in the competition, claiming for Talk:Hurricane King/GA1, Miyagawa (submissions), who scored the first non-review points in the competition, claiming for Dognapping, and Jarry1250 (submissions) who was the first in the competition to use our new "multiplier" mechanic (explanation), claiming for Grigory Potemkin, a subject covered on numerous Wikipedias. Thanks must also go to Jarry1250 for dealing with all bot work- without you, the competition wouldn't be happening!

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round two is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 22:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

David Hrst on Holcombe, Somerset

Hi, On Holcombe, Somerset you piped David Hirst to David Hirst (footballer). Do you have anything to support this? I suspect the David Hurst added yesterday is non notable & doesn't have an article - you also changed the spelling of Hirst to Hurst & David Hirst (footballer) was born in Yorkshire in 1967 & played his career a long way from Somerset. He is now 43 & unlikely to be delivering local papers.— Rod ^talk 08:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The footballer was the only one to live in Somerset for a short time, but I don't think that this is the case anymore. The other David Hirst's are irelevant to Somerset - the journalist is unlikely to be living in Somerset and the judge is unlikely to be living in Holcombe as well. I made a good guess that the footballer was the only one to be living in Somerset. Should we remove it? Jaguar (talk) 10:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep I think best to remove it with an edit summary asking anyone who reinserts it to add a reference.— Rod ^talk 11:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Adding page numbers without checking

Thank you for adding page numbers to the references on Cheddar however I do not believe you have consulted the books concerned. It doesn't help anyone if you are making them up. In at least one case you gave a page number which is a higher number than the book concerned goes up to.— Rod ^talk 21:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that, I only checked the ISBN numbers but I accidentally recorded the number of pages of the whole books! I will do a search this time and see if anything is mentioned to do with Cheddar are in there and record the new page numbers. Jaguar (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe the full text is available online, so this could prove difficult! if you do find them please let me have the URLs & add them to the article. If you had checked the isbn numbers you would have noticed that one of them has been entered wrongly. I have a feeling that you may have made them up?— Rod ^talk 21:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No no no no! I didn't make them up! Really! I have been including books online in references for a very long time now, if I have done it wrong then, well, there will be an awful lot of reverting in all my previous articles... Anyway, I will include the URLs now and will add them to Cheddar. Jaguar (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for my earlier suspicions. You had obviously looked up the snippets on google books, however we need to ensure we get the page numbers for the facts claimed in the article rather than general references to the area. Also care is needed as the isbn links are not always right eg the Bilbie and the Chew Valley clockmakers book and the look up on google books was to a different publication.— Rod ^talk 22:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Bentworth

I'm sorry to see that this article is drifting further and further away from the GA criteria rather than closer since I reviewed it a few months ago. Not your fault, I understand, but a shame nevertheless. Malleus Fatuorum 20:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It's that IP! I know it. Should we request a protection or something? Jaguar (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It hurts me to see Bentworth being vandalised. I thought that this would never happen. Nevertheless, I have requested page protection. I know that this might sound miserable but I have been trying to get Bentworth to GA Status for nearly two years now. What ever happens, I will never give up. Jaguar (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Please be careful though. Administrators by and large don't understand content stuff, but they can all count to three. When this dies down I'd be happy to try and help you get this to GA. But in the meantime be careful! Malleus Fatuorum 22:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Nick-D (talk · contribs) has blocked the IP for 31 hours for edit warring; he's an admin who contributes a lot of content so probably understands the situation. If it starts up again, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll happily protect the article; the IPs edits, though well-meaning, were clearly not very helpful. On a different note, when did Bentworth come into the possession of King John? Currently an image caption says "King John of England had the possession of Bentworth in the 11th century." but he reigned from 1199 (12th century) to 1216 (13th century); I would have corrected it myself but I wasn't sure of the precise year. Nev1 (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Now with this out of the way, I'll keep building Bentworth back up to GA Status. I'll see if I can correct the King John dates. Jaguar (talk) 09:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Cheddar

I've done some more bits to Cheddar based on the peer review. Although I'm still worried about ref 2 "Report of the Board of Agriculture from January 1, 1903 to January 1, 1905 from the New Hampshire Board of Agriculture" as a source for area, I think it could now be nominated at GAN. However this can not be done while a peer review is running & as you opened Wikipedia:Peer review/Cheddar/archive1 I think it is down to you to close it once you feel issues have been addressed & there is no further value in keeping it running - what do you reckon?— Rod ^talk 15:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep I think it is best to close the peer review shortly after the 'Report of the Board of Agriculture from January 1, 1903 to January 1, 1905' could be replaced with another one. I will find another source for the parish acreage but in the meantime I think that the History section could do with a little bit of an extension because comparing it with other towns the history of Cheddar seems rather short. Should we do this first or leave it as it is? Thanks, Jaguar (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

If you have some more material the history section could be expanded, particularly recent history, however some of the sort of stuff which may go in there in other articles is partly in Gorge & Caves, SSSIs, Economy, Transport, Landmarks etc.— Rod ^talk 15:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The Freebase source you have used is a wikipedia mirror (ie it copies the content) so can't be used as a reference.— Rod ^talk 15:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. The Board of Agriculture source I used to have can no longer be reliable because parish boundaries change over time. Most of the sources a over 50 years old so it may be hard finding a reliable source. I will still try to find one. Jaguar (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The Cheddar page on A vision of Britain through time you mentioned on the Cheddar talk page seems to be one of the newest ones I can find. Would this be appropiate for the main article? Jaguar (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be the most recent we can find, so use it, but in a sentence which makes it clear it is a figure from 1961. Template:As of can be used.— Rod ^talk 16:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I have added that to the lead section. Is there anything else we could do to this article before the GA Nomination? Jaguar (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't think of anything else at present - but the reviewer is sure to find something. You just need to close the peer review & then nominate.— Rod ^talk 17:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I have nominated Cheddar for GA now and I have closed the peer review. I have been nominating articles for GA for a long time now but I have never been successful. I will be willing to do anything to get Cheddar up to GA Status in the meantime. Thanks, 18:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath - there are several other nominations in the queue. It may be a few days before review but could be weeks. You just need to be ready to respond to the reviewers comments asap.— Rod ^talk 20:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Reference to Bentworth in 2011

Hello, I've removed your reference to a 'large council development' planned for Bentworth, since that is both untrue and unsubstantiated by your reference. The Parish has been put under a lot of pressure by a small handful of individuals, and for what it's worth I don't think you're one of them, but there are others who choose to believe you may be. Please get in touch to discuss, obviously no dispute with factually correct updates on this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobes01 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for telling me but I don't think that that statement was untrue. There are little sources on the web that contains updates on the new housing development in the village are being held - but it is true. The parish council are currently holding talks with land owners if the housing development will be built in 2012, but you're right - there is no source for that yet. And what do you mean that 'the parish has been put under a lot of pressure by a small handful of individuals'? Do you mean the article or the editors? I'm only trying to help with the article. Thanks, Jaguar (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Portsmouth nightlife

where exactly do you consider this inappropriate blanking, its just a list of bars in the city? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.153.113 (talk) 11:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but according to WP:UKCITIES any article can contain a number of tourist attractions that are notable enough to be put in there. Portsmouth is a city that has lots of nightlife attractions and things like a list of bars and attractions can be put in there if they have references (which they do!). I'm sorry that I listed your actions 'inappropriate' - I knew that you were asuming good faith. Jaguar (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Cheddar

Thanks for having a quick look at Cheddar. If you do review it, I have to warn you that I will be away for a few days so I won't be able to help with the GAN if it opens. But in the meantime I will be willing to extend it and do anything that will help it get to its long deserved GA Status. Regards Jaguar (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

If I do review it, it won't be until after March 3rd. Somebody else may have picked it up before then. SilkTork *^YES! 17:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Bentworth

I've tried to get Ukiws to go on the talk page to discuss his position. I've even given him a warning about WP:3RR but he just seems to be ignoring everything but his editing. (I'm completely neutral on this matter and just trying to stop an edit war.) Peridon (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I have had a look at his talk page, and I thank you for telling him before I was making similar warnings! I don't believe that he is the owner of Bentworth Hall and if he continues to 'break' the article I think it should be best to keep on warning him until he could make reasonable edits. Thanks for your help! Jaguar (talk) 12:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at http://www.airtalk.org/image-vp330110.html - interesting. Peridon (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

... Ah... that's actually very interesting... I must apologise I thought that he was making it up! Well, I must say that he still did blank edits on Bentworth and that must not happen again. I must also tell him that the content of the article is not riddled with bad information as well. Still though, I can't believe it! I've been trying to look at Bentworth Hall for years now but for the owner of Bentworth Hall itself to edit on the article is an honour for me! Thank you. Jaguar (talk) 11:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Cheddar

Greetings, I've made my initial review of Cheddar's GA nomination and put it on hold. there are a few points at Talk:Cheddar/GA1 that need to be addressed before it can be passed. Don't hesitate to get in touch if you need anything, otherwise, ping me when you want me to take another look at the article. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Well done for your contribution in getting Cheddar to GA. BTW there is no need to update the recognised content on the project page, a bot will do it in the next day or two.— Rod ^talk 20:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! My first successful GA nomination after five. Jaguar (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Duncorn Hill

The article Duncorn Hill has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The latest evidence (from the 1966 investigation) is that none of the supposed evidence for a hill fort was evidence of such. So this is a hill possibly notable only for the erroneous assumption that it once had a fort upon it. I don't think it even merits a mention in the Englishcombe article so don't see any point in merging.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Pontificalibus (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I have commented on its talk page opposing its deletion. Jaguar (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Duncorn Hill for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Duncorn Hill is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duncorn Hill until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Pontificalibus (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey mate cheers, im new to wikipedia and im just starting to make my way around, thanks for the information on Signatures :) Webb20k (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome! And welcome to Wikipedia! Jaguar (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Villages in Bath and North East Somerset cat

Thanks for your help with Category:Villages in Bath and North East Somerset (however it would be help to remove Category:Bath and North East Somerset and Category:Villages in Somerset as Villages in Bath and North East Somerset is a sub cat of both of those & we are not supposed to have an article in both parent & sub categories). As far as the other districts go I think we should definitely do Category:Villages in North Somerset as both BANES & N. Somerset are Unitary Authorities. I am less sure about the others : Mendip, Sedgemoor, West Somerset, South Somerset & Taunton Deane as these are districts within the County Council area as opposed to UAs. I would suggest a discussion on these at the Somerset WikiProject before going too far.— Rod ^talk 18:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I had already removed the Category:Bath and North East Somerset but not the Category:Villages in Somerset. I will start removing that category and see if I could start on making a Category:Villages in North Somerset. In the meantime I hope to make all navboxes for Somerset (I had already started {{Taunton Deane}}, {{South Somerset}}, {{West Somerset}}, {{Sedgemoor}} and {{Mendip}}) and now it's just the two Unitary Authorites remaining. However this is the point where I get stuck because since they are Unirary Authorites there cannot be a map for them which joins up with the traditional county of Somerset. I might open a wider discussion on the navboxes on WP Somerset's talk page later on to see on what could be approved. Regards Jaguar (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I've done some of removing Category:Villages in Somerset but there are still quite few more to do - it would be great if you could finish that. As for the navboxes you could use File:Bath and North East Somerset UK locator map.svg & File:North Somerset UK locator map.svg or a version of File:Somerset Ceremonial Numbered2.gif resized as appropriate, however I'm not a map expert. User:Nilfanion has recently been very helpful with some maps for Somerset Levels and may be able to help.— Rod ^talk 20:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll see if I can remove the others and start the remaining navboxes hopefully before I retire. Jaguar (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Fine. Don't mean to intrude but why are you planning to retire?— Rod ^talk 20:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh there was just a large dispute at one of the Libyan conflict article's I started that was getting very popular at over 50K views. It wouldn't be worth mentioning but I think that the discussion has died down now and I'm becoming far too busy to deal with things like that! I may not retire though. >_> Jaguar (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I have now started adding villages to Category:Villages in North Somerset. Jaguar (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5