Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 3

message: Ipswich, Suffolk should be moved to Ipswich, and Ipswich moved to Ipswich (disambiguation). Practically all of the links for Ipswich mean Ipswich in England. Can someone do it? Jooler 18:13, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the Ipswich page to Ipswich (disambiguation). However, we need an admin to delete the old Ipswich page so we can move Ipswich, Suffolk there. jguk 20:53, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: For information, the prefered procedure now is to list the page move on Wikipedia:Requested moves. -- Solipsist 06:54, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah wait - it looks like this move was placed on Wikipedia:Requested moves last night by User:jguk, following the discussion here, but User:G-Man has jumped the gun and completed the move. -- Solipsist 09:31, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Ipswich

message: I may well be completely wrong but I would guess that most people who read this board would be on the side of the deletionists on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (censored). I'm of the opinion that it sets a very unhealthy prcedent to have this "censored" page. It strikes me as particularly unhealthy that given all the possible offensive content on Wikipedia, that this particular page should have been singled out for this treatment. Whilst there may be a number of people who dislike seeing the pictures in the "uncensored" article, I see a political agenda being pushed through here. The article at Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse is already censored. The pictures have fuzzy bits over parts of the images that someone somewhere has deemed too shocking to show. The sole purpose of the separate page is to "lessen the impact" of the article. But the whole point of the story is the pictures themelves. It is like an article on photographic evidence for the existence of extra-terrestials without pictures. In this particular case, without the pictures there would have been no story in the first place. There would just have been unsubstantiated rumours of abuse. To remove the pictures is an attempt to water down the article so that it can be forgotten about, and this is political abuse of Wikipedia, and it is almost certainly being pushed by the in-built American majority that we have to suffer with. Jooler
:I concur.  Inclusion of this particular bit of censorship is PC taken to the extreme.  It is purely political, hidden behind concern for the welfare of children.  (I originally wrote 'pretended' concern in there, but I removed it, because I think that it is 'unwarranted' concern, given all the other things that there are on this site to be concerned about.)  Noisy | Talk 13:57, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
::Looks like you don't know what the term PC means. Production of this censored version is the antithesis of PC as it seek to protect TPTB.--Jirate 14:06, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
I see this as a problem of education.  Many people seem to be unwilling to learn how to operate their browsers, or to trust others to learn these basic technical skills, and so try to produce these unnecessary kludges as a substitute for perceived problems. I regret the passing of the days when RTFM was taken seriously. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Abu Ghraib

message: Is it worth setting a policy for British place names in 
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names)? --Neo 15:23, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just move them, and point anyone who complains in the direction of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Proteus (Talk) 16:44, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Then perhaps those who are voting for the move to the correct name are voting for common sense rather than idiocy? Icundell 22:46, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I certainly wouldn't suggest that people who disagree with me do so because they're idiots.  I have my viewpoint, they have theirs. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:34, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Defining Convention

message: Just to let anyone who was not aware know there is a proposal in place to move Middlesex, England to Middlesex and therefore what is currently at Middlesex to Middlesex (disambiguation), which is being opposed quite vehemently by some due to the number of places called Middlesex in the United States. -- Francs2000 | Talk  16:45, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are making a fair point. If there's Middlesexes in America they aren't known like Washington, say. We wouldn't expect Washington in Tyne-and-Wear or wherever it is to take precedence in listing over the place in America. Have you posted on the "anti-US bias project" that is somewhere on this madhouse, about this? I'll support your page change.WikiUser 17:05, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an anti-US bias project? -- Francs2000 | Talk  17:10, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah there is. i saw it about 3 months ago but i just spent about an hour lookin for it so's i could help yer an give yer the link, but this being the wiki there's no sign of it now. I did find this: Wikipedia Liars Club but as i was tryiner post it to yer myKreeve or whatever he's callin isself came on an blocked me post with his personally offensive message about how he want the wiki to be the laughin stock a the innernet.WikiUser 18:38, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias? (By the by, I initially misread "anti-US bias project" as "project for promoting anti-US bias" rather than "project for countering US bias", and my reading of it sounded much more exciting. :-) ) Proteus (Talk) 19:28, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I support the change, it's much easier than redirecting the hundreds of misdirected links. There are a lot on Middlesex and only a very small ammount are intended to go anywhere other than the county. Rje 17:47, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
s'noticable that when u Francs, post on here 4 assitance u get two offers of help, an when i post on here for assistance on a key issue all i get is abuse.WikiUser 18:32, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Firstly I wasn't asking for assistance but merely pointing out that there was a discussion going on elsewhere that might be pertinent to other British people.  Secondly this isn't a "get as many replies as you can" race: if someone wants to reply to your previous post they will.  Thirdly we are judged not by our statements but by our actions.  I would guess that MykReeve is reacting to something you have done over something you have said on here. -- Francs2000 | Talk  18:53, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: This appears to be part of a kind of article naming creep. What was at Accountancy scandals was move to Accounting scandals of 2002 before it was moved to Accounting scandals. Slowly but surely "Accountancy" disappears. Jooler 13:25, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page move?

message: Not really a purely UK topic, but we need as many helpers as we can get! Since rearranging the Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Sports page there's been left a huge list of athletes/competitors that need to be placed under the relevant sport header. If anyone can spare 5 minutes to scan the list and move some names, or even take a letter and work through that it would be incredibly helpful! Head along to Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Sports#TO_BE_SORTED to help! Cheers, Grunners 05:28, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested sports articles 

message: I am concerned about the number of templates for the UK proper/Crown dependencies/Overseas territories. While I believe the Template: namespace is a good thing, I do believe too much of a good thing is bad. As you all know, there are currently four templates. One (Template:United Kingdom), currently has the UK proper (Template:United Kingdom regions has the UK proper and the English regions), another (Template:Crowncolonies) has the Overseas Territories. Template:British_dependencies has the Overseas territories and Crown dependencies. Why do we have this repetition of data for? I don't see *how* this is helpful to other Wikipedians or general readers. To cure this, I think a single template that combines the UK proper, Crown dependencies, and Overseas territories. You can view the template at my personal sandbox. If you have any questions, discuss here! - Hoshie 05:11, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories are not part of the United Kingdom. Putting them in the UK template is like putting Puerto Rico in a US template. I think perhaps the UK Regions should be used instead of the UK template and British dependencies would probably suffice for both the Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies. Jooler 05:24, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the OTs and Crown Dependencies are a part of the UK since the UK provides defence and conducts foreign relations on behalf of the OTs/Crown Dependencies. I know they aren't part of the UK the same way England, Scotland, Wales, and NI are. As for Puerto Rico and Template:United States, they are not the same as the OTs/Crown Dependencies. Puerto Rico is a part of the US (with some exceptions, such as tax). With this, I believe the new Template is a good idea. - Hoshie 02:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Crown dependencies are not, and never have been, part of the UK. The constitutional link with the Crown has meant that the Bailiwicks and the Isle of Man have been precluded from conducting defence and diplomatic policies which might conflict with the interests of the monarch's United Kingdom. The situation might be said in theory to resemble a personal union. Man vyi 06:30, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Are you seriously trying to say that the existence of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland was "cooked up" by Blair, Prescott and the EU? Since you're posting from Glasgow, why not go to a pub there and try repeating your theory that Scotland doesn't really exist? Do tell us how you get on... -- ChrisO 21:56, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Then I must be a foreigner who knows nothing about Britain.  No wait, I'm a British citizen, and this is some surreal alternative universe where someone has just told me that England doesn't exist...  Please tell me you're having a bubble... -- Francs2000 | Talk  02:54, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is of course a more valid debate over whether the "regions" should be referred to as such, or can they still be called "countries". I would imagine most people are happy calling England, Scotland and Wales countries still, but Northern Ireland is a bit trickier! zoney ♣ talk 12:08, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Scotland and Wales definitely have had their own national identities for years; England less so but could be called a country by defualt of the other two being named so.  Whether they're countries, regions, kingdoms or nations is up for debate but to say that they're a fabrication of the current government is ignorant in the extreme. -- Francs2000 | Talk  16:51, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Far be it for me to stick up for WikiUser, but as far as I can make out from the tangled syntax, the "regions" comment was primarily intended to refer to Template:United Kingdom regions and its listing of English regions. As for Template:United Kingdom, I can't see anything to object to there. I'm unconvinced by the need for a template at all for the Crown dependencies and UK overseas territories - or, indeed, two - but the situation seems to mirror the typically convoluted overlapping constitutional arrangements of the British in all their motley. Man vyi 17:32, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, that makes more sense. Marginally. :-) Thanks for clearing that up... -- ChrisO 23:17, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new national UK template is needed! 

message: The Baby boomer article is massively Americocentric, though most of the incoming links are from US-related articles.  Baby boom is very poor too.  Anyone know much about UK baby booms and could add to the article(s)? violet/riga (t) 12:36, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baby boomer 

message: There is an attempt to build up a database of images from British counties at Wikipedia:List of images/Places/Europe/United Kingdom/Counties, but as you can see it is rather incomplete. 
It would be nice if everyone added their photos to the county images page, of whichever county it was taken in, and perhaps the city page as well, to help build up the database. I have already done some at images of Warwickshire, Northamptonshire and West Midlands. G-Man 21:38, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Did what I could with Buckinghamshire and even started Budapest to boot. -- Francs2000 | Talk  18:57, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos

message: Hi all
I could do with some help with a FAC, Test matches in the 19th century (to 1883) - which I'll probably rename History of Test cricket (1877 to 1883) once it's off FAC. I've spent quite some time getting it up to scratch, but it needs some more support/helpful comments to get it through to FA status. Any help on WP:FAC would be very much appreciated, jguk 21:09, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: In need of some help with a FAC

message: Is there any support for a Wikiportal for the UK?  (WP:UKCOTW has been a bit neglected recently, but a wikiportal would be more reader- (rather than editor-) facing.) -- ALoan (Talk) 13:08, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks to me like those pages are specific subject Main Pages.  That was discussed on here before iirc and glossed over rather quickly, but I think there's scope there.  Would it overlap this page though and would this and the UKCOTW become redundant once it's up and running? -- Francs2000 | Talk  14:32, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, all the existing portals are subject-based, but the UK is an "area of knowledge" too!  We have plenty of featured articles, and it would provide a more visible place for WP:UKCOTW and the "to do" list.   As I said, a portal would be more reader-facing: this would remain the noticeboard for editors. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:04, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK well I'm up for it. -- Francs2000 | Talk  15:10, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am making a start at Wikipedia:Wikiportal/United Kingdom. Give me a few mins to get is going, and then feel free to edit away. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh, don't wait - I'm pretty much done.  Further discussion on Wikipedia Talk:Wikiportal/United Kingdom. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:13, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh!  They'd done the work for you ;) -- ALoan (Talk) 19:26, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikiportal

message: Hi all,
There is a new :Template:EU-stub. Please amend as necessary. I have added it to quite a number of articles, but there are many more in :Category:European Union and subcats. Incidentally a lot of less major EU articles need organisation, copyediting, etc. I think our coverage of the EU is appropriate - it's a mess/maze of complicated and unclearly presented information. Could do with improvement.
Earlier talk on Wikipedia talk:Irish Wikipedians' notice board.
zoney ♣ talk 11:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  EU stub 

message: I've been bold and just declared that the next London meetup should take place in a month's time (Easter Saturday, March 26th). Attendence notices, please. It'd be lovely to see you all.
James F. (talk) 22:30, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  London Meetup