User talk:Lewisskinner/ArchiveJul 2008

Maps

Just spotted your query about maps on User:Jza84 talk page, whilst checking my last message to him. Take a look at Open Street Map I believe you will find they originated from there. Richard Harvey (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello there! Thanks for the contact. I'm afraid Richard's suggestion will be more fruitful; I lost pretty much all my hard copies of the maps last winter when my PC died out-of-the-blue. I lost a hell of a lot of source material I'd collected for them, and other precious but unrelated images and files too. I'm not sure what I can suggest really; I think asking User:JeremyA might be of some use - he's a good cartographer. Sorry to let you down on this one. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help the pair of you. I have indeed contacted JeremyA, but from the looks of thing, he hasn't responded to a message (save for a simple revert[1])on his talk page since February.[2]

By any chance do you know if it's possible to get a district council/local authority boundary overlay on Open Street map? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 12:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Yorkshire football clubs

I made a semi-revert to (these) as a compromise. I appreciate your logic here, but please remember, places like West Yorkshire are counties per policy, and certainly not "subdivisions of Yorkshire". The whole Yorkshire categorisation needs a rethink as currently, we're treating Yorkshire as a modern county made up of four parts, which is pure original conjecture. On reflection I did think having a Yorkshire "mother" category for football clubs was appropriate in that some were founded in Yorkshire as it existed at the time - some of the other parts of the Yorkshire category need a restructure however. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is the geography of Yorkshire, rather than the clubs themselves. Most of the clubs were founded in Yorkshire "as it was then". Rotherham Town F.C. as an obvious example, existed only in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and whilst Rotherham is now in South Yorkshire for ceremonial purposes, Rotherham Town F.C. never was. Sheffield United F.C. was formed when Sheffield was in the West Riding, and it is now ceremonially in South Yorkshire. Harrogate Town F.C. though, formed with Harrogate in the West Riding, and is now ceremonially in North Yorkshire.

Note that I am deliberately using the word "ceremonially" here, because, whilst NY, SY, WE and ERY are not subdivisions of Yorkshire, Yorkshire has not been wiped from the map. A government statement made in 1974, when the Local Government Act 1972 came into effect stated that:

"The new county boundaries are administrative areas, and will not alter the traditional boundaries of counties, nor is it intended that the loyalties of people living in them will change, despite the different names adopted by the new administrative counties."[3]

and hence it is therefore appropriate to include all the clubs from Yorkshire in a category:Yorkshire football clubs. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 23:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that quote has long been exposed as a) a misquote, and b) commentary from a junior civil servant; it is not a government policy statement as the Association of British Counties (and its regional affliates) want to suggest. That said though, it's still a breach of Wikipedia:Place#Counties_of_Britain. As I say, places like North Yorkshire are (quote) "counties for any other purpose" (that's in law), and should be treated as counties for the benefit of our readers per our naming convention. Hope that helps, --Jza84 |  Talk  23:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I realise that - I was being semi-pedantic. The point remains though, that Sheffield United could fit into category:Yorkshire football clubs AND category:South Yorkshire football clubs (as well as category:Sport in Sheffield, category:Sport in South Yorkshire etc), but Rotherham Town F.C. and Rotherham County F.C. can ONLY go into category:Yorkshire football clubs. Are we to allow them into both categories, or define one as a sub-category of another?

Maybe we should take this to WP:Football or WP:Yorkshire? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 02:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Rob Hulse

I've re-added Rob Hulse to Category:Sheffield United F.C. players. The definition of the category is "This is a category for Sheffield United F.C. players past and present." Cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. very sorry - complete accident/mis-click. HotCat and a trigger-happy index finger are a dangerous combination! L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 00:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sheffield Victoria

I've noticed the two reverts you've made to this article on the basis that the DVR cannot or do not want to extend this far. The last time I was in the area a couple of years ago, there was sufficient space to run a single track from the junction with the main line to the rear of Dixons/Capita Call at Nunnery Square and then on through the remains of Viccy as far as Deepcar. Has this changed? The hotel on Victoria doesn't cover the entire site, and if there is space for the DVR to extend, I couldn't see them turning down the opportunity. Lamberhurst (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have said nothing of the sort, and I will thank you not to put words in my mouth. I have, indeed, on stated that DVR want to extend approx 1,200 metres beyond Victoria Station, but that they will not re-open at Vicky. I have only reverted edits which have described the route as anything other than Deepcar to Sheffield Nunnery Square via Wharncliffe Side, Oughtibridge, Wadsley Bridge, Sheffield College (Hillsborough Campus) and Sheffield Ski Village and will continue to do so until the source material states otherwise. There is no stop at Wortley, Stocksbridge, Neepsend or Vicky. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 16:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

First - please remember WP:CIVIL, a simple question by an interested observer does not merit a rude response. Second - my observation was based on your comment used in one of the reverts: "DVS have no intension of reopening Vicky (indeed it'd be impossible with the expanded hotel). Terminus would be at Nunnery". Third - there is no "source material" - the article cites exactly zero sources. Fourth - there is no "route", only proposals. Lamberhurst (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, so in addition to you amazing skills at putting incorrect word into someone's mouth you're also amazingly able to illicit vocal intonations from a textual conversation are you? I have been perfectly civil, and fail to spot the alleged rudeness - I simply asked you not to misquote me! I never said that DVR would stop short of Vicky, and indeed have stated twice that it will go beyond Vicky, once in an article,[4] and once in an edit summary.[5] Fine if you are commenting on one of my reverts and the edit summary, but please check over the past week, and you will see that several anonymous users have been posting this same incorrect information:

1. [6] - revert [7]
2. [8] - revert [9]
3. [10] - revert [11]
4. [12] - revert [13] (warnings for above) [14] [15]
5. [16] - revert [17]
6. [18] - revert [19]
7. [20] - revert [21]
8. [22] - revert [23]

Suffice to say, I've had to do a lot of gardening on this group of articles. And how you can say that there is no source when you have quoted one of my edits summaries, apart from the source! "DVS have no intension of reopening Vicky (indeed it'd be impossible with the expanded hotel). Terminus would be at Nunnery - http://www.donvalleyrailway.org/project/sheffield.)" - there is the source! - http://www.donvalleyrailway.org/project/sheffield! Try clicking, and maybe you will see why I have tried to keep all mentioned of Sheffield Victoria station out of Don Valley Railway and vice versa. Of course there is no DVR source in the Vicky article - it doesn't belong there!

Please, check your facts before you come asking daft questions. I may seem gruff and/or mardy, but I'm one of the good guys! L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 19:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Quite obviously I'm wasting my time with you, and quite why you decided to adopt an aggressive and defensive tone in response to a simple good faith question from afar about the DVR is beyond me. My question had nothing to do with your "gardening" activities, only simply to discover if you had information other than that which is available on the DVR website (evidently not). It's to the credit of wikipedia that you are the first especially rude person I've come across in my time on here. Lamberhurst (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong now? I answered your question in my first response - the line will run from Deepcar to Nunnery, through, but not including, the old Victoria Station. I chose to give you some extra information - the location of the stations on route. Finally, I clarified that I had not said that the route would terminate before Vicky, rather 1,200 metres east of (after) Vicky, at Nunnery. I am not being aggressive or defensive - an oxymoron if ever there was one - as I've said before, You cannot tell someone's tone from simple text! If you wanted to know if I had information other than what was on the DVR website, couldn't you have simply asked that specific question? I'd be happy to direct you to the following:

• minutes from the Upper Don valley Physical Regeneration Strategy
• Message Board Discussion
• A Blog
• Article in the Yorkshire Post
• Transport Plan for the area by [[Sheffield City Council.

There are, of course, other proposed uses for the line - search woodhead tunnel/route/line etc, and reopening. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 22:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

football ground guide EL

Hi Lewisskinner, thanks for your message. I don't think these should be listed as external links in all these stadium pages, it constitutes spamming to a commercial site - relevant information should be converted into references. There are many dozens of stadium and football ground websites. Duncan's site is just one of them and whilst his site is excellent, particularly the message boards, the links are nearly all from early on in the page's history and their usefulness has been overtaken by the improvement in quality and quantity of the stadium articles. There isn't much that a 1 minute google search couldn't locate on any of the dozens of stadium and football ground review websites. It is after all a commercial website and carries heavy advertising.

Most of the major stadia such as Anfield, St James' Park and Old Trafford have converted links to stadium guide websites into references and removed the spam external links altogether. Many only external link to the club's official website if at all. I believe this is the correct approach to improve the encyclopedic integrity and to combat EL spamming of stadium pages.

However, if you still feel my argument is inadequate, I am happy to rv the links. Dancru1 (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of User talk:Lewisskinner/Archive 2

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:User talk:Lewisskinner/Archive 2|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 14:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's very odd! L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 17:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Chesterfield

Hello there! You're the third user to ask in the last week, but it's quite OK given the circumstances.

WP:MOSDATE recently changed meaning that dates are no longer required to be wiki-linked. Key dates (emphasis) may still be linked, or dates may continue to be linked in articles about time or calander systems, but broadly, they shouldn't be linked for the sake of linking.

I only found out a week or so ago owing to a WP:FAC I was involved with and where the issue came up. Hope that helps! --Jza84 |  Talk  16:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that! Guess I ought to have read your talk page first!

So, presumably the new guidelines allow for linking 1066 in the Battle of Hastings article and 1086 in the Doomsday Book article, but that for Sheffield United F.C., who formed in 1889, a link to 1889_in_football_(soccer) or 1888–89 in English football would be more appropriate, and for Minardi, who formed in 1985, it's better not to link dates at all? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 17:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)