This is an archive of past discussions with User:Keith D. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 8,468 last month to 8,621 on October 29th). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 57 is just behind WP:GM who have 58. WP:GM also has the lead in FAs at 49 out of a total number of 2,266 articles.
Currently we have twenty two Yorkshire featured articles:
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
To bring all other top priority articles (currently 15 with 2 at FA) to at least Good article status
To set up a weekly or monthly selected article improvement drive (See this month's feature below)
To produce a regular news letter for circulation to members
and apropos of the above a 2010 New Year article improvement drive/collaboration is being organised.
Dead links
This month I thought that I would concentrate on the problem of link rot in articles. Many of you will have spotted a BOT tagging references with the {{Dead link}} template. The template is added when the external link in a reference is detected as being inaccessible or is a redirect to the main page of the site. You should not remove references that are marked as dead unless you are replacing the reference with a new reference. The information in the reference may be useful to someone trying to locate a valid reference for the text. In order to help this process, when adding references in the first place, add as much detail as possible. It is easier to put in the detail while the reference is in front of you rather than waste someone else's time having to fill in the detail. If you want more detail then see Wikipedia:Link rot.
Many of the project's articles have been tagged in this way by the BOT and it would be useful if members could take a look at the tagged references, when visiting a page, and see if the problem can be resolved. May be the link is now active again in which case it is just a simple task of removing the template. May be an archived copy of the link can be located at the Wayback Machine, just add the link to the reference, if it is templated use the =archiveurl & =archivedate paramerters to record the new location of the link. If the site has been restructured then it may be possible to locate the same page used in the reference by following the links from the home page of the site. In this case replace the URL in the reference and remove the tag. Finally a replacement reference may need to be located if copies of the existing reference cannot be tracked down. If a new reference is used then the old reference and the tag can be removed.
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The November 2010 articles selected below are the editors choice as no one came up with any other suggestions on the project talk page.
The project is subscribed to a clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis. The latest listing was created on March 23rd.
Monitoring is essential Use the watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR.
Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...
Hi. I noticed that you split Wykeham into two about 2 years ago. As far as I can see, they are both the same. What were you thinking of at the time?
mr-c (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC).
59.06, 59.06in and 59.06" are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=4|in=11|num=1|den=16|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=1500}}.
59.843, 59.843in and 59.843" are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=4|in=11|num=5|den=6|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=1520}}.
76.575, 76.575in and 76.575" are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=6|in=4|num=23|den=40|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=1945}}.
1980, 1,980 mm (6 ft 6 in), 1.98 and 1.98m are really {{RailGauge/metric|mm=1980|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|ft=6|in=5|num=19|den=20}}.
77.95, 77.95in and 77.95" are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=6|in=5|num=19|den=20|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=1980}}.
1981 and 1981mm are really {{RailGauge/metric|mm=1981|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|ft=6|in=6|num=|den=}}.
78, 6 ft 6 in (1,981 mm), 6 ft 6 in (1,981 mm), 6 ft 6 in (1,981 mm) and 6 ft 6 in (1,981 mm) are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=6|in=6|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=1981}}.
I am currently trying to catchup from my week away and will get round to it when time permits. Though I must warn against adding to many options to the template is getting near to breaking point, I have already had to redo it to avoid using the convert template as that caused server problem with the amount of code to be processed. Keith D (talk) 12:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
76.575, 76.575in and 76.575" are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=6|in=4|num=23|den=40|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=1945}}.
77.95, 77.95in and 77.95" are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=6|in=5|num=19|den=20|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=1980}}.
78, 6 ft 6 in (1,981 mm), 6 ft 6 in (1,981 mm), 6 ft 6 in (1,981 mm) and 6 ft 6 in (1,981 mm) are really {{RailGauge/imperial|ft=6|in=6|num=|den=|lk={{{lk}}}|disp={{{disp}}}|mm=1981}}.
Hi Keith, Yes,the Y & H G. O. is a bit unclear as to where they are, so I emailed to find out. I await their reply with bated breath.--Harkey (talk) 10:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Reply has arrived:-
The Government Office for Yorkshire and The Humber address is:
Lateral
8 City Walk
Leeds
LS11 9AT
However you might want to note that the Government has announced its intention to abolish Government Offices no later than 31 March 2011
Where is your 'third party' reference that says Chris Grayling is Catholic? Not only is this article grossly biased against Chris Grayling, but it also holds incorrect information. Chris Grayling is Anglican because I know him personally myself. Evidence that he is Catholic? Abucha1 (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
That is the established state of the article, changing what is established needs to have some sort of reference so that we can verify that the established state is wrong. Can you supply anything other than personal knowledge for this change? Keith D (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. I wondered if the page Rosedale Priory should actually just be a redirect to the existing Rosedale Abbey. What do you think? If so, in general is it considered best to put this up for deletion or just add the redirect? I guess the advantage of the redirect is you don't break any links.
Looks like the abbey article is for the village rather than the priory. All of the priories, and similar, have just been created as a series that do not say much as yet so I would probably keep them separate and add the info from the village article to the priory article. If you decide on a redirect then better to keep the history of the article & change it to a redirect. The change can be undone when the article comes to be expanded. Keith D (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
A discussion has begun about whether the article Andy Wear (artist), which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. The-Pope (talk) 06:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Keith, I visited Hull History Centre yesterday, and found start and end dates for the Ennerdale Link tunnel, but no pictures. The only one I have seen is on the UWE Groundwater Case Studies article. (I was not sure that the Yorkshire Assessment page was the right place to continue this discussion). Bob1960evens (talk) 13:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
schools
Hi Keith D. This is a generic message so please bear with me if you are already aware of the situation. In early September changes were made to an infobox template that affected the display of hundreds of school crests/logos in the UK schools infobox. This is now being taken care of and you may find the discussions on this page interesting: Template talk:Infobox UK school, do however leave a message here or here if you come across any that are still not displaying correctly. If you are still actively interested in schools and would like to help out on school pages and school templates, you may wish to consider joining the WP:WPSCHOOLS project where you can also stay abreast of developments by adding its talk page to your watchlist. Happy editing!--Kudpung (talk) 02:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Keith! Thanks for that rapid message on UK Sch template - seems my message above is redundant. However, I was amazed to see that there are over 3,000 pages using it. We have other probs too on UK sch pages - our cousins across the pond have used, in GF, university infoboxes on UK schools that use the word college in their name, and there are plenty of other schools that are using the wrong box or a generic one. I'm not sure how to make lists like that so I have a base to work through - can you help me make some, or tell me how to do it? Is it simply a question of using the toolserver? Many thanks in advance, --Kudpung (talk) 03:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Here are the templates. There are also some UK school articles written in GF by our cousins across the pond that use univerity infoboxes because of the transalantic confusion over the word college - some of them will even have university stubs on them.
I think I can use AWB for the job - will have a look when the Yorkshire tagging run completes - 3994 articles left to look at. Keith D (talk) 13:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
My apologies Keith - I had missed it! Over 5,000 pages on my watchlist, and I actually started pruning it last night. so thanks for giving me the nudge on my tp. Even more enormous thanks for making the lists for me. I will be able now to correct some things that have been bothering me for months. I was in fact busy making some lists too - with 300 members, there are in fact only two who are actually maintaining the project pages and I seem to be the only one doing any pan-project work! The next thing is to send a newsletter to all those members - I seem to remember you once telling me you know how to do that with a bot. Many thanks again for all your help.--Kudpung (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I am disappointed to see that you have ignored the consensus reached by the project community here. I will now revert them. Please direct any further comments to the project page where the community may respond. Lamberhurst (talk) 08:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I only restored the categories to the category page after someone else had restored the category to the set of articles. Keith D (talk) 13:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Keith.Thank you for cleaning up after my merge & redirect. Gives me 2 things to remember for the future. WP:SCHOOLS does not have a redirect class for it's banner, so I'll look into it and see if I can fix the banner template.--Kudpung (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Keith! Thanks for taking interest in handball related templates. If the football project decided to eliminate {{fb start}} and {{fb end}}, I'm sure it would be a good decision for handball too. So go ahead and change whatever you feel necessary :) Aikurn (talk) 12:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I took off the assignment tag; the editor who added it marked it "Expires Wednesday" and many Wednesdays have gone by since March 1, 2010. People who make markings like this should clean up after themselves; we're all so chuffed someone is using the Wikipedia in a classroom none of the regulars will remove the tag. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Keith, I notice that you have made several improvements to the River Hull article recently. I have just expanded the lead, and am thinking of submitting it for Good Article Nomination. I wondered if you had any comments. Bob1960evens (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Well done on the article, I would go for a GA submission, though I would wait a few days until the BOT gets round to sorting out the Images of England links. They restructured things yesterday and broke all article that reference the site, also the Heritage Gateway site search cannot locate the items. You can get to them if you know the ID number so someone has put in a BOT request to make URL changes so the links work again.
I have doubts about the date for the new bridge opening as there was little progress on it when I ventured that way in November and with the bad weather I would guess that this will slip significantly. Keith D (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Looks like the images of England web site has been reverted back and the IoE links are working again at the moment. Keith D (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Yorkshire cricketers
Hi. There were several fairly important Yorkshire cricketers who were not in the Yorkshire project: Wilfred Rhodes, George Macaulay and George Hirst. I've added a banner to each of them; 2 are already FAs and the third is a mess, so the quality is easy enough. However, I'm not sure how they would rate on the importance scale for the Yorkshire project, so I've left them a little vague and feel free to change that. Cheers. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I have not got round to tagging biography articles for the project just done a few as I have come across them. Keith D (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 8,621 last month to 8,665 on November 29th). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 62 is just ahead of WP:GM who have 60. WP:GM also has the lead in FAs at 49 out of a total number of 2,292 articles.
Currently we have twenty four Yorkshire featured articles:
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
To bring all other top priority articles (currently 15 with 2 at FA) to at least Good article status
To set up a weekly or monthly selected article improvement drive (See this month's feature below)
To produce a regular news letter for circulation to members
and apropos of the above a 2010 New Year article improvement drive/collaboration is being organised.
Happy Christmas
Wishing all project members a Happy Christmas and thanks for all the work you have put in to the project over the last year. We have made great strides forward especially in the area of Good Articles
and this month we have a bumper set of seven articles trying for GA status. Some passed the review while others did not, but even a try moves an article forward. Thanks to ll those involved in these articles and keep up the good work.
Cleanup listing
Some members will know that we were subscribed to the clean-up listing that was produced on an occasional basis by a BOT. The BOT owner has left and has not released the source of the BOT for someone to pick-up. The last run of this BOT was in March of this year. Others have stepped in and produced a new tool that runs on the tool server to provide projects with similar information.
The clean-up listing gives details of all of the articles with the project's banner that have clean-up tags attached to them. The listing is in alphabetical order but can be sorted on class, importance or the number of different tags found in an article. If you want the listing grouped by the different tags then the tag grouped listing should be used.
According to the tool run dated 28 November of the 8,729 articles in this project 2,725 or 31.2% are marked for clean-up, though I am unsure how it gets the article count figure as that does not appear to match the counts from the assessment table.
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The December 2010 articles selected below are the editors choice as no one came up with any other suggestions on the project talk page.
The project is subscribed to a clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis.
Monitoring is essential Use the watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR.
Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...
Hi Keith. Maybe none of my business, but you may wish to check this user's good faith contribs because you guys at Yokrs may have different ideas how you want your pages renamed.--Kudpung (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I apologise for making work on the Larkin articles. I looked at them in the summer and noticed they were deteriorating. Ihate to see articles on a poet using so many superfluous words.--J3Mrs (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
No problem, I have continually been trying to tidy up from the IP edits of user LarkinToad2010, others have tried to sort out some of the edits they have made on a number of articles. Keith D (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Well I doubt the IP will approve of the copyedit but I haven't got rid if any info on Larkin 25. If anything I think now it has too many refs!--J3Mrs (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Just spotted this section as I placed the message below. See:- disruptive edits to Larkin Memorial Section on the Philip Larkin Talk Page. I took umbrage at his knocking of J3Mrs. I have also tagged his unsigned ANON messages as 'AKA LarkinToad2010', to match his sockpuppet list. Would it be possible to semi protect the articles he disrupts to prevent anon IP edits? Richard Harvey (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Could you take a look at the Sports section of this article. I feel it is getting a bit promotional for the clubs listed, especially the Golf club onem which reads more like an advert. I can be a bit brutal with what I perceive to be spam, so felt it better to get your input with it being in your area! :) Richard Harvey (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Keith D. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
