User talk:SilkTork

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Edmund Blair Leighton - A flaw in the title.jpg


I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. Barack Obama

To suppress the "Your edit was saved" message add .postedit { display: none; } to your personal CSS.

Cotswolds[edit]

Thanks for your work on this. (I just became involved when I tried to link to 'Cotswold escarpment' and found it didn't exist.) I very much support merging together of stubby articles like the one on "Cotswold stone", but just a couple of things I have noticed on this page, which you might be able to take into consideration.

  • First, I really don't think that (unlike Wenlock Edge, for example) the Cotswold escarpment is usually referred to as an "Edge": there are more googits for "C Edge", but usually as the name of a golf club or similar. But the term "Cotswold escarpment" is very much used to refer to the large-scale geologic feature, with the dip slope going way to the East, Oxford or beyond. I think there could be a better geological/geographical overview of the shape. Perhaps a map...
  • I also see some go.uk publication claims that the northern Cotswold stone is "darker". This seems an odd choice of word: it is very distinctly yellower, but this is done with the "Saturation" control, not "Luminance".

HTH. I grew up in Painswick, by the way. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this. The wording is pretty much what I found in the Cotswold stone article. I haven't yet done any research on it, but will look into those aspects you mention. I'm having a long weekend in the Cotswolds next month, so thought I'd do some research on it before going there. I haven't looked very deeply yet, so there is something that is puzzling me - what is it that defines a place as being in the Cotswolds? I am suspecting it is the limestone bedrock. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Like most such things, there's no clear definition of the extent of "The Cotswolds". Bath and Stratford-upon-Avon are approximate outer bounds to the line of the escarpment, to the East is much less clear, but (off the top of my head) stopping short of Oxford. Oh yes, on thinking about it, I'm sure you can use the expression "Cotswold Edge", but this is not particularly a local term, and would usually be a way of pointing to some part of the very edge of the hills, in an informal way. But when you say "characteristic uplift of the Cotswold Edge" I think this really should say 'escarpment' (no capitals needed). The point is that this is a (slightly technical) term in geography. I think you have shown up the previous inconsistency of ideas about the name origin -- I'm sure the best answer is that no-one knows. Similarly, the Devil's chimney (was this a separate page, can't remember, but anyway) has a theory that it was left by quarrymen as a joke. This strikes me as utterly implausible, though it is repeated as fact on one of the references you gave. Well, it never ends, does it? I will leave you to do what you can, and will try to look at the page again when you have finished for now. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

River disambiguation[edit]

I think your multiple moves of river articles need discussion - I don't think WP:COMMADIS supports these moves. I have commented at Talk:River Yeo (South Somerset). Thanks.--Mhockey (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Other UK rivers are disambiguated the same way, and this does follow WP:COMMADIS. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't agree. There is a lot of variation in disambiguating rivers (and there is nothing special about UK rivers). Which bit of WP:COMMADIS do you think supports your moves?--Mhockey (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
There were two factors. 1) There were already more UK rivers that used comma disambiguation; 2): "Comma-separated disambiguation. With place names, if the disambiguating term is a higher-level administrative division, it is often separated using a comma instead of parentheses". The two factors appeared to work together in harmony. And that follows all other place names where commas are used in place of brackets. I think that at one time brackets were first choice, but over the years commas have come to be preferred as that makes it easier to link when writing article; for example: "light craft use the River Yeo, Somerset" is easy and natural. And such usage is found elsewhere: [1], "River+Yeo%2C+Somerset"&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=%22River+Yeo%2C+Somerset%22&safe=off&tbm=bks, while "River Yeo (South Somerset)" is only found in Wikipedia mirrors. It is clearly artifical, and is not a natural search term. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
But River Yeo, South Somerset isn't a natural search term either. The natural disambiguation for UK rivers in ordinary writing is usually the name of the largest place on the river, e.g. the Bristol Avon, the Stratford Avon, the Lapford Yeo, the Barnstaple Yeo.
Rivers are not really "places", and Bristol, Stratford, Lapford and Barnstaple are not "higher-level administrative divisions" than the rivers they are on. The present consensus on disambiguating rivers is at WP:NCRIVER, to use brackets. I'll move this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers, to see if others want to change the current guidance.--Mhockey (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Opening up the discussion is a good idea. There is a distinction in the approach taken on UK articles to that taken on articles in the rest of the world. Be useful to have some consistency in the matter. I moved the handful of UK articles I found using brackets, but I didn't move any of the other world articles. The discrepancy is shown clearly on the River Avon disambiguation page. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the comma notation works well for rivers. The Avon in S Glos/Somerset is often called the "Bristol Avon", but it is not _in_ Bristol, it merely flows through. So I think "Avon, Bristol" is very unnatural. I also think that while it is handy if article titles can be used as is (saving the piped link), this is not a reason for awkward constructions. And thus "Avon (Bristol)" is a better title IMO. Same goes for the others. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not saying you are wrong and I'm right - I am explaining why I did the moves, and that the moves made sense to me based on the available information, the way that article naming has developed over the years, and common sense.
If the river is often called "Bristol Avon" then that is an appropriate name for the article, and follows WP:Natural.
I am also saying that there is a discrepancy between the way that river articles are named in the UK and river articles are named in the rest of the world, and so I agree with you that there should be a wider discussion. I may take a look at that discussion later, and add some of my views if it looks appropriate to do so. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#WP:BOLDTITLE and election articles[edit]

I have started a discussion that may interest you at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#WP:BOLDTITLE and election articles. Anomalocaris (talk) 08:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

JJE[edit]

No problem. Dapi89 (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Alberget 4A[edit]

Why did you delete the article Alberget 4A? Now I have to write the same article all over again. Bandy boy (talk) 09:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It is clearly promotional. It has already been speedy deleted from the Swedish Wikipedia. This is a non-notable product. Putting a non-notable product on Wikipedia promotes it, and starts to give it a notability that doesn't exist. When the product becomes notable (it is discussed by reliable independent sources), then you can create it again. Recreating it again with the same content would not be a good idea. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Alberget 4A[edit]

(I re-add this here, to hold the discussion together)

Why did you delete the article Alberget 4A? Now I have to write the same article all over again. Bandy boy (talk) 09:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It is clearly promotional. It has already been speedy deleted from the Swedish Wikipedia. This is a non-notable product. Putting a non-notable product on Wikipedia promotes it, and starts to give it a notability that doesn't exist. When the product becomes notable (it is discussed by reliable independent sources), then you can create it again. Recreating it again with the same content would not be a good idea. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
It is not promotional. It has not been deleted from the Swedish Wikipedia, the article by that name which was deleted on Swedish Wikipedia was not about the beer. There is an article about the beer on Swedish Wikipedia now. If you want this deleted, I think you should discuss it first, before you delete it. Bandy boy (talk) 10:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Alberget 4A[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Alberget 4A. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Bandy boy (talk) 10:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)