Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 2

message: I noticed Children in Need was much-linked-to but not written, so I had a bit of mad rush stab at writing something about it. But everyone has seen Children in Need... so it should be dead easy to write, right? Pcb21| Pete 15:24, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps suggest for COTW? --Joe D 15:35, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll support it if it goes there.  I'll even nominate it if you haven't done already. -- Graham  ☺ | Talk 15:46, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  An easy one for all UK Wikipedians

message: Why the River Dwyryd in particular? There is scope for an entire Rivers of the United Kingdom project, or even four projects, to fill in all those on the to-do list. --Keith Edkins 08:50, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I just selected one of the many at rendom. -- Graham  ☺ | Talk 16:05, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Talking of rivers, I expanded a stub on my local River Leam. But, being a newbie, I am not sure how to categorise it nor where it should fit in the great scheme of things. Also, perhaps a more experienced Wikipedian could advise me whether I've filled in enough detail to remove the stub tag? I intend to add to the River Cherwell stub and start articles on a couple of other local rivers which are redlinks ATM so any advice would be useful to me. Ta. Andy F 02:23, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  To create 

message: For use on lists of places of intrest in England, e.g. county pages:
Code                                              	Translation
 (Template:EngPlacesKey)          	
             	
	
         	
          	

	/
            	
             	
                	
Any comments or suggestions for improvements? --Joe D (t) 12:43, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I like these. It would be better if the images were titled, i.e.  =>  gives you something meaningful if you're not using images, and tells you what the image is when you hover over it. fabiform | talk 18:58, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'll do that in any future edits.  I'm considering adding icons for national trails, castles, churches etc, but then we might have to start a customised key for each use (to avoid having a long list of icons which aren't actually used in the text).  By the way, you can already see examples of this in action on Dorset, Bristol and Cornwall.  Joe D (t) 19:11, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: A useful one for my county (Isle of Wight) would be 'pleasure park' - i.e. not as good as an amusment park (such as Chessington or Alton Towers), but in a similar vein. --NeilTarrant 23:02, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, wouldn't it? Why don't we use the standard brown tourist signs and definitions? That could be really helpful. Black on white is fine, but the icon style and definitions could be the same. I like the red museum one though - thats a useful distinction. Naturenet 14:45, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: I'm not restricting it to England, only the template as it includes English Heritage and the National Trust for England logo, which I think is different to NT for Scotland(?).  I think the template may become a bit useless if we start adding more icons, so we have to just make our own key each time we use them anyway. --Joe D (t) 12:20, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: How about adding a footnote to the key, linking to another page perhaps, with a simple disclaimer along the lines of "Land marked  is assumed to be accesible either legally or permited by the landowner, but this is not evidence that there is a legal right to access this land.  Please consult local bylaws or the landowner for further information." ?  Joe D (t) 12:20, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a bad compromise, but it's still dangerous language. I don't think we need go there at all. Perhaps we could say 'Public open space' or some other less loaded term. Naturenet 14:45, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone with "accessible open space" because I think that's a more accurate description. Joe D (t) 15:41, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats much better! I've no qualms with that. Naturenet 16:26, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: When applying it to Kennet and Avon Canal on Somerset I thought maybe "Accessible land" may be better, but all possible wordings I've come up with so far have been a bit over simplified.  Any objections to using "Accessible land" until we can come up with something better?  Joe D (t) 20:18, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems OK to me, maybe even a little better. Shorter, anyway! Naturenet 10:44, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Surely either all three:   , or, if HH icon excludes NT-run houses, two:  , no? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:52, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: A similar dilemma would often present itself with AL/NT icons. Common (although not universal) practice on roadsigns is to have only one sign per attraction, and so it is a matter of judgement which is the most useful. In this case I'd suggest that the NT/EH signs are the most useful if you know that they are involved, especially if there's a fee to pay, as members of those bodies might want to go there. Otherwise the element of the attraction which is most well-known would be the best one to use; or all of them if you feel keen. But use of multiple icons could start to look overfussy and add little information, in my view. Naturenet 19:28, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: New set of icons

message: If a tourist site offers a Country Park and Historic House run by the National Trust, should one list it under the most 'notable' category, or all three?  --NeilTarrant 18:05, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely either all three:   , or, if HH icon excludes NT-run houses, two:  , no? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:52, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: A similar dilemma would often present itself with AL/NT icons. Common (although not universal) practice on roadsigns is to have only one sign per attraction, and so it is a matter of judgement which is the most useful. In this case I'd suggest that the NT/EH signs are the most useful if you know that they are involved, especially if there's a fee to pay, as members of those bodies might want to go there. Otherwise the element of the attraction which is most well-known would be the best one to use; or all of them if you feel keen. But use of multiple icons could start to look overfussy and add little information, in my view. Naturenet 19:28, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query - A matter of Style 

message: I've been looking through the pages for the different English counties.  While the wikiprojects have done well with the infobox, many of the articles, IMO are seriously lacking.  I have done up Dorset with the sections and subpages that I think these articles need and have co-opted the old page Wikipedia:Counties of England for further discussion of this. --Joe D (t) 17:32, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can take a look at Buckinghamshire and let me know what you think of it - whether it's lacking or good, I'll have a guideline of what you mean.  I wrote most of that page and (personally) consider it to be quite good. -- Graham  ☺ | Talk 21:43, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  English Counties 

message: Current Wikipedia policy is that every time the abbreviation for the United States is used, it should always be written U.S. rather than US. This is regardless of whether the article puts stops in other abbreviations or not. There is a proposal to remove this policy. If you wish to vote on it, please go to Wikipedia:Manual of Style. The poll ends at 8pm GMT on 8 November. jguk 23:27, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll on [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style]]

message: Recently List of Number 1 singles from the 2000s (UK) (and related) articles were split from the main number ones list.  That's an improvement, but I've now created the 2004 in music (UK) and 2003 in music (UK) (not quite finished) articles.  Comments (or help for the other years!) would be great.  Basically, is it worth the time and effort? violet/riga (t) 22:15, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music articles 

message: I have just put up an article about the River Cherwell which mentions several villages that don't yet have pages. As a newbie, I don't know whether these will automatically appear in the UK 'to do' list or whether I should add them manually? Or should I write stubs for them? Advice (either here or on my Talk page) would be appreciated. Thanks. Andy F 13:31, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you need to add those manually.  A better way to do it though (so that the page doesn't get any more cluttered than it already is) is to list them in the List of places in... county article (if it isn't already created then create it) and then direct users to that page from the complete to do list. -- Graham  ☺ | Talk 18:40, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ta Graham, I will try to find time to do it that way. Andy F 16:04, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: More village redlinks

message: Please let everyone know about the "election" currently running to elect The Arbitration Committee. These people decide what happens to a large extent on The Wikipedia so please go to [this page] and learn a bit more about the candidates. Also more information [here]. Is everybody going to vote?WikiUser 21:48, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Why the emphasis on "election"? -- Graham  ☺ | Talk 21:51, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitration Committee Elections

message: I've created a List of Europe-related topics (shortcut|Europe topics), as there ws no such article for Europe-wide articles. If anyone comes across such an article whilst editing, please add it to the List, and add the shortcut to the top of the article. Cheers. Grunners 20:16, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Europe-related topics 

message: I'm most definitely a sucker, but I've taken on another WikiProject: Wikipedia:WikiProject computers. If anyone has any flair with computers or knows how to research computer topics, I welcome them there!!!! We're still formulating policy. 
Anyone interested? Even if you're not, let your geeky friends know. They're more than welcome. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:43, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  OK, I'm a sucker 

message: FYI, I have started a new British and Irish current events page. Please feel free to add UK current events (including sports events). jguk 23:02, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent idea and fine start. One small word of caution - be wary of words like 'insist' (the Dec 1 Blunkett story). There should be a compelling reason to use something other than 'said'. Also, if there is a way to lose the two uses of 'ongoing' in the box, I would be quite greateful (but that might just be me!). Icundell 01:04, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: So you say to cconfidently conceptualise amendments and enact them in an aggresive but non-confrontational way?  Had it not been gone 1am I would have - and will once I can think of a better word (which involves getting xmas shopping out of my head first). Icundell 09:58, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[British and Irish current events]] 

message: I'd just like to point out that :Category:Retailers (non food) of the United Kingdom is a silly category. We don't have "People (not actors)" for example. Edward 00:01, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)
:Has it been nominated at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion yet?  I think it should be. -- Graham  ☺ | Talk 01:00, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Could not agree more, but following a disagreement already with this rather abrasive editor I will probably be accused of spite (moi?) if I nominate it. Giano 14:57, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see the user in question has User talk:Pcpcpc has now added: - "If you have come here to snipe (for example to reward me for spending ten hours sorting out an uncategorised section the site by telling me that one of the sub-category names I choose is stupid) please keep your thoughts to yourself." So perhaps one had better keep one's thoughts to oneself! Giano 15:08, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retailer category 

message: :Image:EH icon.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:EH icon.png