User talk:Jeni/Archives/2009/May

Jeni

User · Awards · Talk · Contributions · E-mail

St David's

Hello Jenuk1985. I am not sure there is, as yet, any evidence that the move of St David's to St David's and the Cathedral Close, which you reverted, is as controversial as you suggest. I had checked the History and Talk pages prior to making the move, and the only discussion was whether to include the apostrophe or not. As part of this discussion there was a question posed in 2006 as to the official name. One person, namely yourself, does not make the move controversial, and perhaps you should have gathered evidence to support your assertion before reverting. Having said that, I have no doubt that St David's is the more commonly used name for the settlement, rather than the rather ridiculous St David's and the Cathedral Close. However, the article is about the city. The lead states, as reverted, "St David's is the smallest city in the United Kingdom." As it stands that statement is incorrect. St David's is a settlement within the City of St David's and the Cathedral Close as is shown at Census 2001 and Ordnance Survey. As this is an encyclopaedia, I would therefore argue that the name should be under the official title of the city. I would suggest the lead be rewritten to "St David's and the Cathedral Close, known more commonly as St David's, is the smallest city in the United Kingdom." St David's would, of course, remain as a redirect page. Any thoughts? Skinsmoke (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to create an article on the community parish of City of St David's and the Cathedral Close, I suggest you start a new one, rather than hijack an existing page. Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is hijacking anything. The article claims in its first few words to be about the city. The population figure quoted is for the city. It goes on later to talk about being "the only city in the United Kingdom to lie entirely in a national park" and that it is "the first carbon neutral city in the world".

As for your comment "I can find no sources to suggest this city is known as anything but St David's. If you would like to discuss otherwise, please use the talk page, rather than be disruptive" try looking at the sources on the page, namely Census 2001 and St Davids City Council. The city council's website state "The City Council, or the City Council of St.Davids and the Cathedral Close to give its full name, is a Community Council in its role and statutory powers.". Ordnance Survey also confirms the name.

I am not the one being disruptive here. My edits were backed by the sources, which is why I reverted User:DWaterson's edit to your version, which I was quite happy with. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First Leicester Bus Routes

I have noticed that you have set up the Uk bus drive and was wondering wether one for First Leicester Bus Routes should be set up ? thanks 86.4.127.20 (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, because Leicester is in the UK. Jenuk1985 | Talk 18:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok i though it could be right because london has them Thanks 86.4.127.20 (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wembley

I admire your attempt to find a good(ish) version. I'm afraid you'd have back up another 150 or so to find anything halfway decent. I mean, there were exclamation marks! I'm going start with a versions from around the beginning of the year and then try to re-insert whatever may have been added since then that is~~n't ungrammatical, misspelled boosterism written by a 14 year-old~~ worth saving -- if there is anything. Any advice gratefully received. Cheers. --Rrburke^(talk) 23:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I had just been reverting to the most recent semi workable version, with the intent of asking someone nicely to have a good copyedit of it (I had asked on IRC at the time). But if you are taking up the challenge, I wish you good luck! I don't have enough local knowledge or skills in prose to do anything decent with it myself! Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 549

Hi! The article above was deleted, but I'd still like to know your thoughts whether route 549 is less notable than, say, 78, 80, 123, 288, 356, 486, U7 or hundreds of others? I think we should be consistent and either

delete them all
delete none of them (not even 549)

Cheers, Chrisahn (talk) 11:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I intend to go through the list and pick out the least notable and nominate them for deletion. If I'm honest, most of them really don't meet the notability guidelines, and its time to start being consistent! Its definitely not a time to start deleting them all, as there are some that *are* notable. Jenuk1985 | Talk 12:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an inclusionist and I think Wikipedia will be worse off when these articles are gone, but such are the rules, apparently. I guess you should give editors who contributed to them a chance to merge them into larger pages or something like that before you delete them. Bye, Chrisahn (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds are you removing these individual London bus route pages. You say you intend to 'pick out the least notable'. What are the criteria for notability in this case?

Whether or not they are 'notable', I for one found them interesting and useful to refer to. Dubmill (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has notability guidelines, the core of which can be found at WP:N, if an article does not meet those guidelines, then they should be removed. Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand what criteria you are using to remove some routes but not others. Could you choose two example London bus routes and explain why one is notable and the other isn't. Dubmill (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should have redirected a lot more, as to be honest, probably about 90% of them don't meet the notability guidelines, but for this first run through I opted to only redirect the pathetic routes. Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give an example of one of the other 10%, explaining how it satisfies your criteria for notability. I don't know what you mean by 'pathetic routes'. They are all just bus routes that go to make up a transport network serving a city.

This is a wider issue but I think sometimes people who are heavily into editing wikipedia forget what other people use wikipedia for - to find out information about things they are interested in. I almost use it more than google now, and I am sure there are a lot of people like me. But if people can no longer find the information they are looking for, they will stop using wikipedia. Dubmill (talk) 23:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just compare one of the first 100 routes to one of those which I redirected, as an example. Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By 'one of the first 100 routes' do you mean routes numbered 1 to 100? If so, I am looking at route no. 87 and I would like you to explain to me how it meets the required standards for notability.

I am not moaning, by the way. I am trying to discuss the matter with you, and trying to get you to justify what you are doing, by explaining to me how the notability works with reference to specific bus routes. I don't understand why you keep asking me to go look at this or that, as if it was all self-evident, rather than explaining your own rationale. Dubmill (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

← And I have justified what I am doing by asking you to read the notability guideline. If you have issues with the notability guideline, then there are other venues to take that matter up. I have already stated that I haven't redirected many articles that need redirecting. Do you have anything else to moan about? If you wish to recreate a few of the articles I'll happily send them to AfD so they can be properly deleted that way. Jenuk1985 | Talk 01:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the General Notability guideline but, to spell it out, I simply don't understand it, **ie in regard to how it operates in this case**, and was requesting you explain it to me, since by deleting large numbers of pages you clearly seem to think you have a good understanding of why some pages need to go and others remain. Bus routes are notable in the sense that they exist and are widely used, but are not a subject given a great deal of academic study, being, rather, just part of the fabric of everyday life. The bus route pages I have seen have external links to the TFL site and so on, but have few if any citations for noteworthy or historical facts claimed. I don't know if that means no such external sources are available or that editors have failed to supply them.

After a number of exchanges with you, I still cannot get a sense of what your criteria for deletion are, because you keep referring back to the Notability guideline, which I freely admit I do not understand in this case. You say 90% of routes are non-notable. That implies 10% ARE notable, but you are apparently unwilling to give me an example of a route that you have looked at and decided was worth keeping. Did you start at no. 1 and work up? Just because a route is numbered under 100 doesn't make it more significant than a higher numbered route. For example, route 80 is a suburban route running from Hackbridge to Belmont, but route 341, which you deleted yesterday, runs from Northumberland Park (in outer north London) to Waterloo, via Islington, Holborn, Fleet Street and the Aldwych, making it a much more 'important' route, if one of the criteria is serving central areas of a city. Not that I'm sure it is, because I am unclear *why* you deleted route 341 - you simply referred to the lack of notability. Again, it loops back to the question of defining notability in an area like this, which is why I have repeatedly asked you for clarification of how *you* are interpreting the guidelines.

I did read your remarks elsewhere about Wikipedia not being a travel guide. I take that point, although I don't necessarily agree with it. In my opinion Wikipedia provides lots of different kinds of information, which is what makes it one of the most useful sites on the internet. I do, however, see the problem with regard to external citations on many of these bus pages.

To be honest I am becoming weary of this exchange so if you feel my request for an explanation is unreasonable we had better just leave it at that and agree to disagree. Dubmill (talk) 10:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the feedback on my talk page regarding East London Bus Group, I did leave a repy on my own page and just letting you know that I haven't got a problem with you reverting back to the old text. Regards - DagenhamBusSpotter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dagenhambusspotter (talk • contribs) 19:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks for helping me with the bus route maps, and giving me lots of free advice on bus articles - much appreciated! :) Majorly talk 00:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awww thanks for that! :) Unexpected! You are doing a hell of a lot of good work yourself, don't forget that! Jenuk1985 | Talk 00:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bus transport in Cardiff

If you want a third opinion, I suggest you go to WP:3O rather than involving your friend User:Arriva436. Welshleprechaun (talk) 13:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No reason why I shouldn't bring in another user who has experience in dealing with bus route lists. Jenuk1985 | Talk 13:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wilmslow Road

I have responded to some of your points with a new version of the summary table, to be found on the talk page. This version is much more legible, has removed some of the less notable variations, and I hope you will be able to give some constructive criticism on it. I do feel it is important to give some indication as to how many buses per hour operate along Europe's busiest bus corridor, and that a table is the best way to show this information, so hopefully this compromise will go some way to bridging our difference of opinion. Thanks. Divy (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leamington Spa

Please to not return any unreferenced biographical information about living persons to the Leamington Spa page again, as you did in this edit. Snowman (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well Done!

		The Original Barnstar
		At first I was fumed that my hard work was deleted but then I calmed down and thought about it and I realized that my London Bus articles were actually quite non-notable so Well done, have a barnstar. Cheers! Crest of London ^(T\|C\|A) 19:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced articles

Hi Jenuk1985, taking on board your comment about drive by tagging A425 road, please could you give me a hand by showing me a link for not tagging an unreferenced article. All I could quickly find was [1]. Widefox (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unreferenced - "Consider not adding this template to extremely short articles.". Taking this into account, on the article you tagged, what was there that could possibly be referenced? Looking at WP:BURDEN - "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation", you seriously feel that what is given in the article is likely to be challenged? There are more important articles out there to tag. Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also have a read of Wikipedia:Common_knowledge, while it is only an essay, its common sense. Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

mmm, yes I agree I will consider not adding to short articles in future. True too, that for "map" articles, as you say, a reference wouldn't add much. It's a balance though, as if I quote that guide WP:BURDEN "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.". Thanks for enlightening me. Widefox (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Equally "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." doesn't mean that if a stub is unsourced it is unworthy of inclusion, it just hasn't been expanded yet. Wikipedia has many yet to be expanded stubs, all worthy of inclusion. Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]