Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Waterways/Archive 2

message: Assessment has now been set up with cats created on Unassessed-FA quality and no-top importance. The assessment page is at its basics. Creation of some of the other cats may be needed in future. Please improve the template as well. Simply south 23:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that this old version of the Montgomery Canal was rated B class, I'd like to see how the current version fares. Hmallett 10:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For content, it fares superbly, but we need to inline reference it to get a GA on it. Mayalld 07:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment 

message: Well, we've managed to get all the articles rated for quality, which is no mean feat, but we still need to rate about 100 fro importance, then we can really see where we need to concentrate effort.
In rating for importance, I've tended to use the following as starting points;
High	Articles about canals that are heavily used parts of the network (T+M/SU/GU), major structures (Anderton/Standedge) or about people/organisations who are very significant (Brindley/Telford/IWA/BW)
Mid 	Articles about all other navigable canals, and about disused canals that might see restoration within 10 years, most other tunnels and aqueducts, particularly noteworthy locks (Richmond lock for example), reservoirs that are of some particular note (Rudyard because it was once mooted that navigation would be routed that way), people and organisations that are of more than just very local significance (FM&C, Outram, NABO)
Low 	Everything else, particularly most reservoirs, derelict canals that will still be derelict in 10 years. Short navigable but disconnected canals, people or organisations of minor significance, most articles about individual locks.
Anything that is a bit set apart from others in the class might get upped a level (High→Top, Mid→High, Low→Mid)
Mayalld 07:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance Rating 

message: A couple of existing GA articles have been flagged, but given that we've started on the assessment process, we should probably start taking some B-class articles forward to GA review. Mayalld 06:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that this old version of the Montgomery Canal was rated B class, I'd like to see how the current version fares. Hmallett 10:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For content, it fares superbly, but we need to inline reference it to get a GA on it. Mayalld 07:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article Candidates 

message: I've noticed that for some canals (particularly the Ellesmere Canal, Llangollen Canal and Montgomery Canal) there is some information that is replicated across the articles, and in a couple of cases contradicts each other. Given that these 3 canals are actually two canals that merged (Ellesmere and Montgomery) and are referred to as two canals (Llangollen and Montgomery, except the 'new' Montgomery isn't the same as the 'old' Montgomery), what would be the best method of ensuring consistency and avoiding unneccesary duplication? Hmallett 15:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added maps to the Montgomery Canal article. There's scope for improvement (partially due to an incomplete legend), but it should serve as a basis for improvement. If the Montgomery ones are good enough, I'll do a map for the Llangollen Canal too. Hmallett 15:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlaps 

message: ::::I have to say that only one editor comes out of this looking bad, and it isn't those who reverted the edits! The initial edits bordered on vandalism, and the robust defence of the indefensible that SomeHuman put up, including ad-hominem attacks, together with his actions in continuing the actions once it was clear that they were controversial is very poor practice. 
::::As to the next steps, I've added a discussion on the MoS talk page to see if we can get some sort of broader consensus there. I would hope that, notwithstanding the actions of SomeHuman we can resolve this reasonably, and without it getting uglier or needing escalation. I would suggest;
::::#SomeHuman undertakes not to apply or re-apply any similar changes until the situation is resolved.
::::#SomeHuman accepts that pending a consensus to the contrary, moves will be reverted to the SQ as existed before his edits
::::#Any articles that weren't previously capitalised, stay uncapitalised pending a consensus
::::#New articles are created according to the preference of the first editor for the time being
::::#We all allow time for the MOS discussion to form an opinion, before taking that discussion as a guide for this discussion.
::::#We all respect the eventual consensus here.
::::If we can't move on this basis, I would agree that WP:AN/I is probably the next step, but I would like to allow SomeHuman an opportunity to see reason before we escalate.Mayalld 09:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with those who wish to maintain capitalisation of names. For example, Foxton Locks.Martin Cordon 11:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yep, I tried as well. This is the process I suspect needs to be followed Wikipedia:Requested moves. There's Little Bedwyn Lock, Little Bedwyn lock, and Bedwyn little lock!!!Pyrotec 13:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC. Alternatively, you could try User:Slambo, he will have seen this before on UK railway stations article naming.Pyrotec 13:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Slambo has now very kindly changed the name back to Little Bedwyn Lock.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: He moved Caen Hill Locks, which is a B-class article and Peterborough Lift Lock - I've just rated it start-class (but its not far off a B-class).We can do down his contribution list one by one if he wants to claim he moved only stubs.Pyrotec,  17:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't apologize too much. True he didn't move Foxton Locks, he just added Foxton locks, but let us not forget that the only reason that the redirect page was added was to facilitate his copyediting mission to decapitalise in the text of other pages. Mayalld 20:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Way Forward (section break to facilitate editing)

message: I've just posted at User Talk:SomeHuman trying to suggest a way forward, urging him to accept not that he was wrong, but that as a lone voice in the wilderness he should accept that a U-1 Consensus exists on this issue, and that the consensus should prevail. For my part, despite my reservations in respect of his good faith expressed earlier, I'm prepared to accept that (absent any further escalation of this dispute) the edits were in good faith, even if misguided, and I would urge others to do likewise. I hope User:SomeHuman will agree with this as a way forward that allows us all to move on without lasting acrimony, and without the seemingly inevitable time wasting dispute resolution process  Mayalld 07:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Ddstretch and User:EdJogg have both contributed to the discussion there, and it looks hopeful that peace may break out :-) Mayalld 15:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Where we are going with this

message: Given that the root cause of this problem would appear to be a lack of clarity in WP:MOS, I've proposed an addition to the MoS at WT:MOS which I believe addresses the issue by providing clarity. The proposed wording borrows heavily from the Institutions wording, as I believe that this is the best analogy that we can follow. I've attempted not to be confrontational by specifically avoiding canal related examples, and added a sentence which presumes that geographic features and built structures usually have a proper name rather than being Innominate and the name being merely descriptive. That is, I believe, the issue upon which the disagreement over capitalisation of lock names hinges.Mayalld 10:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It hasn't exactly whipped them up in a frenzy! I suppose that means that nobody is that upset about it, but I'd love more support before actually putting it in. Mayalld 15:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, you're too impatient. Changes to Wikipolicies can take weeks, or months, to come to fruition. There's mileage in it, but you may need to raise awareness within the general community, and make sure you're sticking to all the procedures. Best of luck! EdJogg 16:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I shall persevere. I don't want it to vanish from the radar. I guess that if nobody says anything on the subject for a few weeks though the community will assume that the issue has gone away, or do I have that wrong. If I'm screwing up anything, somebody tell me before I make an arse of myself, please! And if keeping the topic "live" is needed, I'd be grateful for any help! Mayalld 20:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not leave it for another week for comments. If no more are supplied, or if only supportive statements are supplied, then how about the following as a sensible way forward for this? Pay attention to the comments already given and announce an edit to the MoS in the same way you've already done. If no more radical alterations are suggested to the revised additions, after one more week, then go ahead and add the material, after announcing your intention to do so in advance. That way, no one can say they weren't given the option of objecting or commenting. Now, if objections are supplied, then you probably need to try to accommodate them by revising the proposed insertions in some way, especially if the objection is unopposed or if it has merit. This almost certainly will take more time for the addition to finally be made by yourself. As EdJogg states, there seems no way to rush this.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: My apologies if this has already been mentioned, but IWA has a Style Guide [] that favors capitalization. Derek Andrews 10:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed addition to MoS

message: Just a reminder to everyone that when copying or modifying icons you need to pay some attention to the correct use of the copyright licence. 
When creating a new icon from an existing one it is important to preserve any copyright conditions of the original. If the original has a GFDL licence then you need to preserve that GFDL on every derivative icon, mentioning the original author (or all previous authors) - giving attribution. This is a fundamental principle behind GFDL and no work based on a GFDL original can become public domain (unless you are the absolute creator in which case you could republish as PD).
When I create an original I use PD to make this process easier for others, but if I modify a previous work then I have to copy the original licence if it was not PD and credit the author, as well as myself as a joint author. I am not sure whether there is a prescribed form, but this is how I did a similar thing: . This is some extra effort but needs to be done. :)  Oosoom Talk to me 08:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright