Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 9

message: The UK Collaboration of the Fortnight is dead. We've had the same article listed since November. Time for a resurrection or shall we let it die a natural death? Secretlondon 03:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I've not been involved with the project much recently, but if someone nominates an article I'd love to get involved. --βjweþþ (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok - I'll promote the current nomination with the highest support and lets start afresh. Secretlondon 14:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm game, too. I've only been here a couple of months and I didn't know there was a UK collaboration. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: UK Collaboration of the Fortnight

message: I've created a fairly simple Wikipedia:Welsh Wikipedians' notice board (shortcut WP:WWNB) to try to get things started. Please have a look and consider signing on, adding it to your watchlist  and helping to make sure any users with an interest in the subject know about it.  Also please feel free to add things and to change anything you feel needs changing – I'm not under the impression that I own it! Rhion 19:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Welsh Wikipedians' notice board]] 

message: On January 6 with this edit  this page was moved from the British and Commonwealth spelling of humour to the American spelling. This is firmly against Wikipedia policy and the page should be moved back immediately. Jooler 13:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put it back where the article was created.  See also Talk:Toilet humour. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Toilet humour]] moved to [[Toilet humor]] 

message: I have asked Tim Starling to look into this. Just adding a signed comment seems to remove other contributors content. This is not my way of editing an article.
So once again I apologize for a result that I never would have intended nor contemplated in my life. Dieter Simon 00:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding a signed comment — Ilyanep (Talk) 01:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow...the edit history looks weird though. — Ilyanep (Talk) 01:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also just tried a couple of tests: editing both the whole page and this section alone. I can't reproduce the fault. Tearlach 01:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing [[Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board]] 

message: A few weeks ago I began collating the results of the constituency of Lewes and visited the local library. In so doing I discovered that if you are a member of your local authority library, then you are entitled to use the "Times Digital Archive" for free'. This means that you can view every edition of The Times in searchable PDF format from 1795 to 1985. This is certainly true in East Sussex and presumably elsewhere. So all you need is a library card and a pin number (for online use) and then you can search The Times archive from the comfort on your own home. In addition you are also entitled to view for free any article on the Encyclopaedia Britannica site and the Dictionary of National Biography. I'm sure you'll all agree that these sites with free access provide an invaluable set of resources for Wikipedians. Jooler 22:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent tip. Here in Hampshire the list is a little different. We have Encyclopaedia Britannica, XReferplus, The full OED and Oxford Reference Online. All available online from the comfort of your own home with nothing more than your library card number (no pin required). --MarkS 20:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FYI

message: Can someone please take a picture to illustrate this article? The old images on this page which were there for quite some time were deleted because they were unsourced. Jooler 11:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Mind the gap]]

message: Please give Isambard Kingdom Brunel your consideration on Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates - thanks! --PopUpPirate 00:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brunel - FAC 

message: I've added this notice board to Wikipedia, and call upon all interested editors to help with the refining and addition of articles related to Northern Ireland and the Northern Irish people.  Spread the word around. --Mal 00:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Northern Irish Wikipedians' notice board 

message: In an attempt to stop a current spate of edit warring I am re-opening the discussion of traditional counties again. This time the victims are :Template:Scotland counties, :Template:Infobox Scotland place and :Template:Infobox Scotland place with map. This dispute centres around the Scottish local government changes of 1975 and the current perceived status of counties in Scotland.  There is a similar dispute in the Counties of Scotland article, but this has the added argument about the use of the word 'county' before the 18th century.  There has been a fair amount of hostility thus far, so can we discuss this here in a civilized manner? Owain (talk) 10:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of it from you. Trying to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for promoting you views on "traditional counies".--84.9.194.234 13:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not true at all. There is a campaign of vandalism by Sockpuppets of a banned user and contributions to a debate that add nothing. Thanks. Owain (talk) 14:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traditional counties revisited 

message: For info HSBC is the current Hong Kong COTW, posting here as seems relevant. Ian3055 14:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hong Kong COTW 

message: The above new article has been called "POV-ish" so I'd appreciate some outside views(I admit there is little on the government position, but have found very little support for the government position in the press). -- ALoan (Talk) 11:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference to Hitler from the Times letters page makes it seem a bit hysterical. Needs a description of what it's replacing and less press commentator and more politician references - Hansard?. Would be good to have the Tory position. Secretlondon 12:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps; but Marcel Berlins compared it to Stalin. I have been beefing it out.  The Tories approved of cutting "red tape" but are opposed to the bill as it stands. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill]]

message: There is a new proposed naming convention for UK stations under discussion. Warofdreams talk 01:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations)]]

message: I have finished expanding this article and I will now try to address Peer Review comments. I think it is sufficently content-rich that after some copyediting it can be a FA candidate. Comments and any help would be appreciated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Anthony Giddens]] 

message: Anyone know what the copyright status is for the coats of arms of English counties, towns and cities? Somebody removed one from a dab template and I restored it as suggesting we can't fairly use the arms of our own county is copyright paranoia to me. (If the copyrights haven't expired through the passing of time, if they're not public domain, is Gloucestershire County Council going to sue Wikipedia for using the coat of arms to illustrate articles about the county?! Can there be any fairer use?). I would however like to know the actual legal status so I can retag any images if need be, hopefully tagging them with something less restrictive and more substantial than . --kingboyk 19:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whilst the copyright for the arms may have expired - a potential minefield of crown copyright, though - has the copyright of the image? Someone's gone and made that image, and they'll retain copyright on it... Shimgray | talk | 19:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The ones I've uploaded have come from the county/borough councils' own websites (Yate and Cheltenham). I don't know about Gloucestershire as I didn't upload that one. --kingboyk 20:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know about Counties, towns and cities, borroughs etc.. perhaps the copyright is owned by the Crown, or the relevant authority bodies. I wondered about coats of arms when it came to creating my Orr (surname) article. I found the coat of arms on a webpage, created an image based on it (read: I edited and cleaned up the original), and donated it to the Wiki Image namespace under PD or Free Use or something. I assume, being a descendant of the Orrs, that I own the coat of arms perhaps! --Mal 20:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pretty much my way of thinking as a person born in Gloucestershire too. It's a sad day indeed if I can't put my county's coat of arms into a template which merely says "this is an article about Gloucestershire"! --kingboyk 20:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright status of coats of arms