Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hampshire/Archive 1

Archive 1

Hampshire county

Hello, good luck with the project! Just thought the project ought to point out it is based on the county of Hampshire, UK, and not Hampshire County, Massachusetts! I'm also from the former, but why not collaborate with any would be US Hampshire Hogs :) LeeVJ (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've adjusted the intro accordingly. waggers (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Woolmer

I begun the article on Woolmer, describing it as a 'village'. Is this strictly accurate? What is its connection to the military? Anypone who knows the place please do look over the stub Grunners (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

info box

is there one for this project yet? Grunners (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming you mean userbox rather than infobox - there isn't one that's been created especially, but I suggest you use {{Participant|Hampshire}} which gives:

This user is a participant in WikiProject Hampshire.

If you do mean infobox, then it will depend on the article in question - rivers will use {{Infobox River}}, hospitals {{Infobox Hospital}}, places {{Infobox UK place}}, etc. - there's no need for anything Hampshire-specific. waggers (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Userbox, yes, sorry my mistake! =) Grunners (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I've just created a new one especially for the project: {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Hampshire/userbox}} - which gives:

This user is a member of WikiProject Hampshire.

. Hope you like it! waggers (talk) 09:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Importance Criteria

It seems to me that we need to work out an Importance Criteria to rate articles.

General Guidelines: The importance of articles is a more local criterion. It mirrors the project-wide importance scheme, but in relation to a publication purely about Hampshire as opposed to a general encyclopaedia. For example, articles on Hampshire's subdivisions and prinicpal settlements might not appear as stand-alone entries in a general print encyclopaedia but would be essential inclusions in an encyclopaedia of Hampshire.

Need: A measure of a subject's importance, regardless of its quality

Top	Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia.
High	Subject is exceptionally important.
Mid	Subject contributes a depth of knowledge.
Low	Subject fills in important details.
NA	Subject importance is not applicable.

My Thoughts/Proposal:

Top	Large settlements, very notable from outside.	Southampton, New Forest
High	Smaller settlements and places of interest/awareness outside the county.	Aldershot, Southampton F.C., University of Southampton. Winchester Cathedral
Mid	Smallest settlements/areas. Places of importance to residents, including more notable schools/colleges. Overviews of whole of county.	Marwell Zoological Park, Netley, History of Hampshire, Peter Symonds College
Low	Everything else, generally only important to a small number of people in the county.	Sholing railway station, Cantell Secondary School, Southampton Music Services
No	Items/people from/in Hampshire that are non-notable	The General (TV series)

Hmmm, just realised we could 'copy' someone elses. Wikipedia:WikiProject Cornwall/Assessment phrases it well:

Label	Criteria	Examples
Top	Places, icons or topics recognisable or of interest to the whole UK or further.	Cornwall, Saint Piran's Flag, Eden Project
High	Articles with recognition in the Westcountry or all of Cornwall.	Camborne, Media in Cornwall
Mid	Articles with recognition in most of Cornwall or specialist topics.	Looe, Diocese of Truro
Low	Articles with very localised recognition.	Lanner

--Fluteflute ^{Talk Contributions} 16:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the general guidelines outlined in {{Importance legend}} do a good job, if we apply the criteria to Hampshire specifically. In other words:

Label	Criteria	Examples
Top	Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia of Hampshire	Hampshire, cities and major towns, scheduled ancient monuments
High	Subject is exceptionally important within Hampshire	Grade I and II* listed buildings, smaller towns and particularly notable villages, local government districts, Portsmouth and Southampton football clubs, Hampshire Cricket Club, major rivers, particularly notable schools (eg Winchester College), particularly notable people from Hampshire
Mid	Subject contributes a depth of knowledge to Hampshire.	Grade II and III listed buildings, villages and larger city suburbs, parishes, urban area articles, tributaries to major rivers, secondary schools, not-very-famous people who's sphere of influence is related to the county
Low	Subject fills in important details.	Smaller city suburbs, hamlets, primary schools, people from Hampshire who's sphere of influence doesn't relate directly to the county

I think in general all of the suggestions are in broad agreement, and it's important to remember that the whole process is subjective and so there will be differences of opinion. If there's a particularly difficult or contentious choice, it should be brought here for discussion. waggers (talk) 12:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:13, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Bursledon Windmill

Can this article be reassessed please? Mjroots (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)  Done waggers (talk) 11:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Portuguese Fireplace

Does anyone know where i can find more info on this. Also have i repeated myself? Also have i repeated myself? Also have i repeated myself? Also have i repeated myself? Simply south (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC) Simply south (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater South East

I am proposing to merge a number of low or moderately active projects in south east England. The discussion is here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England#Wikipedia:WikiProject Greater South East MRSC (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Neatham

I've created a stub for Neatham. Feel free to improve it. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 10:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Up Nately

I've started a stub for Up Nately. All contributions welcome. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 08:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Winslade

I have created a stub for Winslade. It is needing a infobox and a map, please help if you can. Thank you. Jaguar (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2010 (GMT)

 Done waggers (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Bentworth

Could this article be reassessed please? Jaguar (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done Jaguar (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Southampton Terminus Railway Station

Can this be reassessed please, a lot of work from a few people have gone into remaking this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southampton_Terminus_railway_station (Zeoace (talk) 10:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC))

There are still large sections with no references. This needs to be addressed before the article can be re-rated. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 11:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Tufton

I've created a stub for Tufton. All contributions welcome. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 08:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hampshire articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Hampshire articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hampshire settlements

Hi, I started working through the Basingstoke and Deane settlements and them branched out in Jaguars footsteps to more general Hampshire village articles, adding templates, governance and infoboxes. I've noticed that the Hampshire subdivision navigational boxes are quite different and in some cases missing:

And missing (unless I just haven't found them yet) Rushmore, Fareham (borough) and Havant (borough). So, which one should they all look like? And is New Forest Towns just New Forest (the national park) or should it be New Forest (district) like the other boxes? Scillystuff (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind comments. The New Forest template counts as the district itself (if it were to count as the National Park, there would be settlements that are not in Hampshire, some of the New Forest extends into Wiltshire). I too have noticed that all the Hampshire templates look different. But generally speaking, they should all look like the {{East Hampshire}}, {{Test Valley}} and {{Winchester}} templates because they were generally speaking, the oldest and default ones! Also, all the other templates need cleaning up. There are currently some redlinks in the {{Havant}} template and the {{Eastleigh borough}} one is not according to the general layout. I will be happy to create the Rushmoor and Fareham boroughs, although they are difficult to create because Rushmoor only covers the towns of Aldershot and Farnborough (along with its suburbs which have not yet been created) and Fareham only coveres... well, Fareham! I will look into these and see what I can do. Jaguar (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, so I have boldly modified Winchester and New Forest to be more similar to the other templates. Scillystuff (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Charles Fryatt

I've added the {{Hants}} to the talk page of Charles Fryatt (a GA). I've assessed the importance as low, feel free to change this if you wish. Mjroots (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Weston Colley

I have been building this page (on the back of Jaguar's start). I hope to add images soon (have to find out how to do so). Also, I hope this is the right place - apologies if not - but Weston Colley is shown as in the civil parish of Stoke Charity. Is this correct? I thought - as do all the fellow residents with whom I spoke - that Weston Colley was within Micheldever. I have, however, left it as is for now, pending feedback. When I know for certain, I shall be able to re-write the first paragraph better than I have it now. Also: I am citing references where I can, though many aspects are only verifiable from visiting, rather than from known records (which may or may not exist). I may be able to offer further proof via the photographs when I discover how to submit them. Any comments appreciated. Druidbroga. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Druidbroga (talk • contribs) 22:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

According to the OS 1:25000 map (see here), it's inside the boundary of Micheldever civil parish. Parish boundaries are the dotted lines such as the one drawn just below the words "River Dever" between Weston Colley and Stoke Charity; parish names are written in large dark grey capitals. Stoke Charity is itself not a civil parish, but lies within Wonston CP. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Timeline of Jane Austen

There is a new weekly section on the main page called "Today's featured list" and I have nominated Timeline of Jane Austen to have a spot here. There has been some opposition to the nomination and it looks like the list could become a removal candidate very soon unless the quality of the list is improved. If you are interested in maintaining the list's featured status and seeing a summary of it up on the main page, your help in improving the article would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Where is Swanwick?

According to various maps - both printed and online - Swanwick village is here, and Swanwick railway station is to the south of that, here. Yet a succession of IP editors seem bent on transposing their relative positions, see editing history of Swanwick, Hampshire and editing history of Swanwick railway station. I cannot revert again, because I would then have violated WP:3RR. Can anybody assist please? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Places in the Southampton/Portsmouth borderline are one of the most confusing places on earth (from personal experience). They consist of only names yet these 'settlements' do not have any history - most were built on purpose due to the London overspill and they all consists of huge council estates. Swansick is no civil parish (it's in Fareham) so the its boundaries extend to the railway station, but the actual village is above the M27. Jaguar (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I've just reverted again, which could be construed as borderline WP:3RR vio - four reverts in slightly over 24 hours. The maddening thing is that these IP editors are clearly not looking at maps. Given that the station is a fixed, known point - if Swanwick railway station is approximately one mile east of the village and Lower Swanwick is situated two miles SSW of the village, then Swanwick is actually in Sarisbury, and Lower Swanwick is actually in Warsash. Could project members please add the two Swanwick pages to their watchlists? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

No need to worry about this nonsense. I've semi-protected both pages for three weeks. Nev1 (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Itchen Navigation

I have taken the liberty of updating the status of this article to B-class on your project, as it has been expanded by a factor of five, and now meets the criteria for that designation. I hope this is ok, but if not, feel free to re-assess it. Regards. Bob1960evens (talk) 07:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

It has now passed a GA assessment. Bob1960evens (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion discussion of Bristol/Bath to South Coast Study

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bristol/Bath to South Coast Study. to discuss whether the article, which falls within the domain of this wikiproject, should be deleted — Rod ^talk 15:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Task forces

Hello as we are a very major project I think it would be constructive to create some task forces for example Basingstoke or Winchester may need a good task force each. If you think so please tell me below. Ideally we need at least five to start one and ten to be really effective

• basingstoke
• winchester
• Andover
• portsmouth

<-Please put more ideas at bottom of list.-> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calu2000 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 4 January 2013 ‎

Not a bad idea and one I've considered for a while, but I'm not sure we have enough active members for task forces to be effective. Until we get a bigger and more active membership I think setting up task forces would be more effort than it's worth.

We might also want to consider topical rather than locality based task forces - eg. rivers, country houses, settlements etcWaggersTALK 16:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

thank you for your support looking at the users list I quite Agee mor time is needed  Not done (I've always wanted to do that yay!!!)

List of hills of Hampshire

I have just created a list of hills of Hampshire which I hope readers will find useful. Feel free to check and enhance. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed reinstatement of article on Bristol/Bath to South Coast Study

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Bristol/Bath to South Coast Study#Proposed reinstatement of content. -- Trevj (talk) 10:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Intro

I just redid the intro for this page. Hopefully it is a big improvement on what we had before. --Jwikiediting (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Just a note, the formatting of the box is being discussed at Portal_talk:Hampshire/box-header if anyone wants to join the discussion. --Jwikiediting (talk) 14:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Please help get Hants ready for the start of the Wiki Loves Monuments competition on 1st September

This September the UK is taking part for the first time in the international photography competition Wiki Loves Monuments. Participants will be invited to submit pictures of listed buildings of significant importance (grades I or grade II*), as recorded by English Heritage. The main external website for competitors can be found here, and you can leave a message there if you have queries about competing. Do please join in, and let people in your local area know of this excellent way in which both existing and new Wiki users can help improve the encyclopaedia by contributing photographs of local listed structures. What about organizing a local Wikimeet to attract new people?

In preparation for the start of the competition on 1st September there is still quite a lot of work to do, and we would like to ask for the help of members of this wikiproject. Your local and expert knowledge will be invaluable in ensuring that the lists of eligible buildings are up to date and correctly formatted. If you look at Listed buildings in the United Kingdom you will see how many structures are included. If you then follow the link to Listed buildings in England, you can get to the detailed lists for your area. Alternatively have a look at the WLM planning table. Can you help to ensure that the lists for your area are up to date and well presented?

Some of the lists have been semi-automatically generated from data provided by English Heritage. These use pre formatted templates (eg EH header) which will make it much easier for competition participants to upload their photographs to Commons as an automated process. Please don't change the template structure, as we need to ensure that the templates are properly compatible with the WLM standards that are in use worldwide. The format will allow a bot automatically to collect the information and to put it into the international Monuments Database.

The data still needs the attention of local editors:

• The "title" may need wikilinking to a suitable article name (whether we currently have that article or not). If there are several buildings in one street all of the wikilinks point at an article about the street; however each entry has a separate line in the list.
• The "location" column looks and sorts better if just the parish or town is included (& wikilinked).
• The "date completed" column sometimes has eg "C19" for 19th century, and "C1850" for c. 1850 when the date is uncertain - these need to be corrected manually.
• The "grid ref & lat & long" (which is occasionally missing) may be given to 8 characters — only 6 (grid ref) or 5 (lat & long) are really needed.
• Clicking on the "list entry number" should take you to the data sheet for that entry on the English Heritage database which can be checked if needed for details.
• The image column should have a picture added if we already have a suitable image on Commons. (N.B. if you are going to be taking photos yourself for inclusion in the competition don't upload them until September)
• References may be added according to normal WP practice.

For further information, please see Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in the United Kingdom.

If you have any queries, please post them not below but on the Organizers' help page on Commons.

Anything you can do to help improve these lists will be much appreciated. The final deadline for cleaning up is 31st August.

--MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Charles Simeon

Members of this WikiProject may be able to help with this request. Thanks heaps. Schwede66 10:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Flow

Hi all. You've probably already heard about WP:FLOW, the new talk page system that's going to be introduced across Wikipedia. The Flow team are currently looking for WikiProjects to volunteer to be early adopters of the system, and I was thinking we could put our hat into the ring. I know this talk page isn't hugely busy but in some ways that makes us good contenders to try out the new system. Any objections? WaggersTALK 08:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Will it be mandatory? If so, I'm out. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, what do you mean by "mandatory," Redrose64? If you mean "I have to do it because someone from the Wikimedia Foundation says so," then no :) I am very curious about why you seem to feel opposed to participating, though. Can you elaborate on your concerns? Maryana (WMF) (talk) 20:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Flow, from what I have seen, will force a structure on a talk page. Unlike Visual Editor (where users may choose whether to use it or not), it will be all or nothing: once the talk page is converted to Flow, it can no longer be edited as wikitext. Talk pages are much more than simple threaded discussions. We will not be able to give examples of markup, demonstrate code, use templates, serve warnings, or use anything other than the most basic wiki markup. We will not be able to partially amend the comments of others, even if they be simple typos (such as where they used the wrong form of markup or linked the wrong page); and so if somebody gives out personal information (on help desks, newbies often give out email addresses at the end of what is otherwise a perfectly legitimate post), or makes an offensive remark, we will either have to leave it alone or revert the whole edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that this discussion is about using Flow on this page in particular, not talk pages in general, and none of those examples are from this page or are things we often do on this page, I don't quite understand the objection. This is about trying Flow out here and here only, for the time being. We can only explore whether any perceived limitations are genuine concerns by trying it, and I think this project talk page is a good place to do that. Pretty much all of the discussions here are simple threaded discussions so Flow should work well here. WaggersTALK 09:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

What about: the wikiproject banner and to-do lists; this demo; this suggestion; or these examples? How will they work? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

1. The Summary of features in the minimum viable product specification shows that there will be an editable header area, so we won't lose things like the WP banner.
2. Templates, including table templates, work in Flow. For example, try copying this wikitext into a new topic at the Flow sandbox - it works.
3. If they didn't work for whatever reason, (eg for highly complex templates etc) it would still be possible to create them in userspace and link to them from here for discussion.

I hope that addresses your concerns. I think there have been a lot of myths flying about concerning what Flow will or won't be able to do, and most of those are without foundation. I'm not saying there won't be teething issues, but let's give it a chance. WaggersTALK 14:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Yep, Waggers is correct on all counts. You can still configure your project headers with links and templates. You can still use the vast majority of wikitext, templates, and extensions within individual posts.

The point of this very limited trial is for us to 1) discover any potential limitations and fix them, and 2) start identifying features that will be needed for any kind of wider releases (to user talk, article talk, etc.). Lastly, if you're not happy with how Flow works during the trial, we can disable it and return all the discussions you had back to unstructured wikitext. So, you basically get to work with a big engineering team to build the Wikipedia discussion system of your dreams, and you won't lose any existing discussions along the way. I'd say it's pretty low-risk and high benefit, but I'm biased :) Maryana (WMF) (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Can Flow be disabled or can it be opted-out? Sorry for coming in late as I've been on and off wikipedia for months and I agree with Redrose that the older version sounds a lot simpler here! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 19:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

@Jaguar: I can't understand how clicking "edit", scrolling down to the end of the comment you want to respond to, using the right number of colons to indent, signing with four tildes, and remembering a whole heap of other Wikitext and talk page conventions is in any way simpler than just typing in a text box and clicking on a "reply" button, even for experienced users let alone newbies. But that's a discussion for somewhere else. My understanding is that once Flow is enabled on a page, users won't be able to edit the wikitext version of that page. Note that doesn't stop you from including wikitext in your Flow posts though, as discussed above. WaggersTALK 12:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I see. Yes I agree with you there some conventions that can be made a lot simpler, I have always found that using the right number of colons just to reply to someone is very annoying! Sorry I've been away from wikipedia for a long time I forgot how some of the things work! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 15:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

That's great, thanks Jaguar. Having addressed Redrose64's concerns above and with no other forthcoming objections, I think we're ready to roll. WaggersTALK 11:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to seeing this! :) ☠ Jaguar ☠ 19:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Portsea

Should Portsea have its own article, or just be Portsea Island#Portsea? It was turned into a dab page on 17 October, with as yet no attention to the incoming links which now lead to a dab page. Someone with local knowledge might like to have a look at it. I've also left a note on the talk page of the editor who made the change. PamD 23:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I have now fixed all of the incoming links which now do not lead to the dab page. 2 of the links to Portsea in fact referred to Portsea, Victoria. One referred to the island as a whole. BTW I have the local knowledge mentioned. The term cropped up historically in written records (being a city parish) more than it does today, with people simply today in almost every case submitting to outsiders they are from Portsmouth. One thinks of St Giles, London being a good analogy. - Adam37 Talk 20:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Flow invitation to kick-the-tires

Hey all, We've reached the stage with Flow where it's relatively stable, and we'd like to invite you to take some time to try it out and chase bugs. It currently lives on a staff-run test server, which means it isn't hooked up to Single User Login - you can either edit anonymously or, preferably, create a new account under your current username.

The software has a minimal set of features at the moment; normal discussions with wikitext and templates should work fine (although Quiddity has only imported a few hundred templates), but there are some known bugs (and features that we're working on this fortnight) with the software. We're not looking to deploy Flow to enwiki in its current form, nor asking you to give your seal of approval to that.

What we'd like is for you to use the software, test it out and let us know two things:

1. If there are any bugs (you can report them here);
2. What changes or features you'd need added, to be personally comfortable with deploying it on your wikiproject (which you can explain here)

On the off chance that Flow is really, really broken for you, to the point where you can't post (maybe a browser issue?) you can of course use the enwiki talkpage for both purposes. If you have any questions about the test, you can post them there too :). We're going to be holding this testing open for a week to allow people to really hammer on the software, although we may not be around Thursday or Friday (it's Thanksgiving). If not, don't worry: we'll reply to you when we return.

Thanks! –Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. It would be great if more editors would test out the current setup, and give feedback (there, here, anywhere!). The devs and designers need to know what you're thinking, and what you're missing/wanting (and what you're appreciating!).

Also, you might like to glance through these 2 test pages that I created on that server: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Hampshire and Talk:River_source which I copied across a few weeks/days ago. I copied them across diff-by-diff by going through the history, and used a variety of accounts (randomly in the first, and more rigorously in the second), so hopefully that's a fairly accurate representation of how it might look (except for the clustered times).

Thanks again, –Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Are we ready to Flow here? News and a request for confirmation

Greetings. First off, thank you for greatly assisting with the feedback and suggestions on Flow's development - the team can only build it as well as our support enables them to.

They'd like us to confirm that we're all ready and willing to try it out right here, so that we can find out what works well, what needs more changes, and what additional features are mostly prominently desired or dreamed of over the next few months. The trial would start during the week of January 6th (specific day to be set closer to launch) and will last for as long as your WikiProject is interested in using the software (more details on ending the trial below).

Here's a synopsis of what's been added recently (which you can test at mw:Talk:Sandbox):

• mw:Special:Contributions now works properly again.
• 3 viewing options: normal, collapsed, and small for a Table of contents-like view of the page
• Attribution of moderated content (see mockup image)

Here's a list of items that they're working on this month as top-priority, which will be added to the live software as soon as possible (some likely before the WikiProject trial period).

Next two weeks:

• A more condensed "small view" (see mockup image)
• Attribution of edited content (see mockup image)
• Replacing the roll-over links (e.g. "Reply") with static links, and moving the permalink/moderation tools into an "action menu" (see mockup image)

Next four weeks:

• Better automated edit-summaries (see notes)
• Abuse-filter integration (see analysis)
• A "thank" button (that works like the current thank feature)
• A system to "Close and summarize" an entire topic (equivalent to {{hat}} etc)

Beyond that, there's a long list of brainstormed features, at mw:Flow Portal/Release planning#Feature buckets - your feedback and suggestions would, as ever, be most appreciated.

The transition: The current talkpage will be archived in-full in the regular way. The page will be Flow-enabled, and the WikiProject header templates added. After that, we hope that normal WikiProject discussions will resume as usual, and that any Flow-related discussions will take place at Wikipedia talk:Flow.

The "opt-out" mechanism: If there's WikiProject consensus to back out of the trial once it is underway, that will take about 24 hours from once you've decided. The Flow team will then convert the Flow Board into a wikitext page, add default signature+timestamps, and place that here. However, they do of course strongly hope that you'll weather through any small problems (of which some are inevitable), and continue to give ongoing suggestions!

The more we/you speak up with good insights, the faster it will turn into the discussion&collaboration system we've always wanted and needed. Thanks again. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Straw poll

I'm ready to trial

• WaggersTALK 12:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
• ☠ Jaguar ☠ 17:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm almost ready to trial, but would like to see x changed/added first.

I object to any live implementation of Flow at this time

• DES ^(talk) 00:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

An update on Flow

Hi all. This is a very brief note, to let you know the current plans. January 23 (Thursday 27 (afternoon PST) is the current target date for release on this page, and at WP:WikiProject Breakfast, as well as at WT:Flow and WT:Flow/Design FAQ (WT:Flow/Developer_test_page). This will give the devs time to work on a bug-sprint, so that they can concentrate on the fresh feedback from us when it goes live. :) Thanks again, Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Date update: January 28th is now set on the deployment calendar. (Because next week, there's a US Holiday on Monday, and an engineer summit on Thursday/Friday). Thanks. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I see one user proposing it and two objecting. That soes not look like consensus to implemet it to me. DES ^(talk) 00:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Hi. This edit (the end of the thread) was taken to have demonstrated consensus. I'll ping Redrose64 now though, in case more input is required. Any other WikiProject participants are of course welcome to chime in, too! :) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Frankly I object to any page on the English language Wikipedia being made thus less usable. (and from the descriptiosn of the limitations of Flow phase 1, i do not think it suitable for any page on the project as yet.) Pages are not WP:OWNED by wiki projects, after all. DES ^(talk) 02:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The "less usable" thing is purely subjective. My own experience of testing Flow indicates that it will make talk pages considerable more usable than they are at present. There's no loss of functionality. And ultimately the only way to settle this argument is to give it a go. As stated above this is a relatively low volume talk page so if there were to be any issues with trying it here they would be well contained. WaggersTALK 22:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I note that the ownership guideline is about Wikipedia content, not Wikipedia processes (which can, self-evidently, be centred around a particular group of people. ArbCom control the ArbCom pages, Sandy and her delegates control the FAC pages...and it seems sensible to suggest that a Wikiproject, which is quite literally "a group of Wikipedians coming together around a shared interest", is probably possessed by that group of Wikipedians). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

@Jaguar: and any other Wikiproject participants: your input in the straw poll above, would be appreciated. I'd be happy to help answer any questions, as always. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 02:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for tagging me in this, I have just had a look at one example of Flow and am quite confused. Why are several users called 'Diego Moya' and 'Bluemoon1234'? Are these just bugs that won't be present in the final version? Either way it looks good and I would be supporting it as other than these problems it looks clean, simple and fresh! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 17:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

@Jaguar: Sorry, the confusion is my fault: That talkpage was an early test, where I used 3 accounts (each running in Chrome/Firefox/Opera) to rapidly&imperfectly copy across the prior discussions (Bluemoon123, and Crash test model, are both me ;). Diego Moya then added some later threads, using his own test accounts. No bugs, just laziness! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Just noting: Should this test of Flow go live, it will be used to test functionality of both Checkuser and Oversight (suppression) tools. Test accounts will be used as well. Risker (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

There's been a delay of one week, due to differences between the mediawikiwiki and enwiki codebases, so the deployment is now scheduled for Monday, February 3, between 11-13 PST. Thanks for your patience. :) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Southampton map

Hi, I've requested a better quality map here. If you have any specific requests please ask there.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Please read before testing Flow.

Thank you again for volunteering to help test out Flow. Please direct all feedback on the software to the Flow talk page to avoid distractions here. Thanks!

Please remember that this is early-stage beta software, and the intent of this trial is to get your feedback on what's missing and what needs to be changed. We urge you to give Flow a good-faith try – it can only become as good as you help us make it! – but if you find things not working out, we can stop the trial and return your conversations to a talk page. We'll be asking directly in 2/4 weeks whether you're happy to continue testing, but will greatly appreciate all the feedback you can give in the meantime. Thanks again! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, when I look at the "hidden" topic below - I'm not sure if that hides it from only non-admins, or it simply collapses the topic - it seems to have also hidden an image whose provenance is not clear. I can't see anything in the history that indicates the image was added after Flow was added. It is also enormous when the topic below is uncollapsed. I suspect the image is of somewhere in (you guessed it!) New Hampshire. Risker (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Risker: Yep, this is a known bug, and yes, it hides it, albeit not from non-admins - it's basically analogous to rollback. Anyway; as said above, I'd like to avoid polluting the Hampshire talkpage here, since the users of Hampshire are likely to, well, want to use it. The feedback is most welcome but it'd probably be best to relocate to Wikipedia talk:Flow with any further thoughts :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Okeyes (WMF): The Hampshire talkpage is the first project that uses

Flow - surely a thread commenting on how the new software works for them is not out of place? BTW I can't access the archive pages, the links in the Archive box don't work for me - the box content doesn't even show as text. (Tested both in Firefox and Chrome) Diego (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Diego Moya: I tried clicking on the link to the archives and it seemed to work fine for me. (Firefox)

Hmmm I was intending to respond to Oliver, not sure why is addresses it to Diego. Hold on, my bad, Diego was responding to Oliver, so I did want to respond to Diego, which I did. S Philbrick(Talk) 02:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Sphilbrick: The initial comments about archiving relate to the fact that this page originally had one of the standard "filing cabinet and archive list" icons at the top. It was impossible to access the archives that way. Maryana came up with a workaround that gives a blue link in the header material. Risker (talk) 03:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, Okeyes, my point there was that there's an image on this page and I have no way of knowing whether or not it was there before the change, whether it was put there as a test, whether it was put there by someone who normally participates in the project and it accidentally got caught in your "hiding" - which is in no way analogous to rollback; it's analogous to hatting. Remember, the page history also is completely uninformative. Risker (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Risker: It was put there by MZMcBride, after the switch (or else it couldn't have been included here). It wasn't an accident. Jorm (WMF) (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC) (Edited by Legoktm (talk))

Risker: Well, as you can see from the blankness of this page, the only things live on Flow-enabled pages are things that were created after Flow was enabled. The reason for the lack of clarity is twofold; first, we're still working on unifying topic and page history so that it will be more informative, and second, hiding obfuscates the original author of the posts. These are, as said known bugs. I hope this more expansive comment helps. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Hence my comment that I could not tell how it got there, or whether or not it was something that ought not to be included in the "hiding". The page history doesn't include the edit that inserted it. Risker (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Risker: Yup - the lack of a real history page is going to be a major problem. Unfortunately, AFAIK there is no way that they can bring it back and make the Flow software work as a real wiki page, so don't expect it to be fixed anytime soon. Diego (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Diego Moya: Er. Did you see my comment above about how we're building a real history page? ;p Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Okeyes (WMF): I must have missed it :-/ I still find the Flow structure confusing. No way to tell what I have read and what I haven't - I tend to use history diffs for that. :-P (And of course, the huge amount of wasted space between posts don't help at all to find the content to read - too distracting). Diego (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Diego Moya: The font size for indented replies seems to be slightly smaller. Is that intentional?

And is there only one level of indents? Okeyes' reply to Diego isn't indented. Diego's reply to Okeyes isn't either. In a longer dialogue that could become confusing.

Lines of text don't wrap to fill the window's available width.

When typing, the lower edge of the text box and the Cancel, Preview and Reply buttons underneath wobble.

It's kind of distracting to the eye. Andreas JN466 04:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Diego Moya: This reply is to Diego's post above starting "Risker: Yup". Andreas JN466 04:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Jayen466: This reply is to my own post starting "This reply is to Diego's post ...". I note that it is not now apparent to which of Diego's posts I was replying in that post. Andreas JN466 05:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Diego Moya: This reply is to Diego's post starting "Okeyes (WMF): I must have missed it." Andreas JN466 05:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Jayen466: Now, if I had not quoted the beginnings of Diego's posts, would Diego have been able to tell which one of their posts I was replying to in each case? Andreas JN466 05:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Diego Moya: In other words, if Diego had five posts above, and I were to say, Diego, I totally agree with that, would he know which of his posts I was agreeing with? (This post was made by clicking on the Reply link under Diego's post starting "Risker: Yup ...") Andreas JN466 05:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Jayen466: Perhaps you would enjoy running your tests on an actual test page, such as this one. Jorm (WMF) (talk) 07:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Jorm (WMF): For the record - I got an email ping that you had replied to my post. In fact, you replied to Jayen466's post. So let's see what kind of email notice results from my replying to you. Risker (talk) 12:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Jorm (WMF): Well, it says at the top of this page,

"This WikiProject has volunteered to help test the Flow extension, a new piece of discussion and collaboration software. Please discuss the software itself at Wikipedia talk:Flow, so that this project can continue its work without extra distraction."

(I would have liked to put the word *test* in bold, but couldn't.)

So I thought this *was* a test page, given that the linked WT:Flow page does not have Flow enabled, and none of the discussion above seemed to be about the business of WikiProject Hampshire.

May I suggest you add the link to the actual test page you want people to use to the header above?

For the record, I got a notification that Jorm had mentioned me on this page. Andreas JN466 13:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the image mentioned by Risker, although I doubt it was related to New Hampshire. S Philbrick(Talk) 02:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Sphilbrick: OK, now I see the image and it is New Hampshire. How odd. S Philbrick(Talk) 03:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Sphilbrick: Oh. I could've sworn this was the New Hampshire WikiProject talk page. I thought Flow was being deployed to WikiProjects Breakfast and New Hampshire, but I think it's actually WikiProjects Breakfast and Hampshire. Close, but no cigar, hrmph. MZMcBride (talk) 04:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there is a lot of space on this page being wasted - large margins to the left and right are just plain white. And I find the font quite large and the space between posts too much - but otherwise I like it! Sorry if I sound like I'm moaning, I just want to test this for myself. ~~~~ JAGUAR  23:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh. Don't use '~~~~' any more, I get it... this is going to take some getting used to! JAGUAR  23:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a horribly jarring experience, speaking as a confident, computer-literate and experienced Wikipedian. Goodness knows what effect it will have on novices, who have only just learned to use regular talk pages, I don't believe such testing should be carried out in the live workspace, and that if and when flow is introduced, it should happen no all talk pages at once. Until than testing should be done only in sandbox pages. ~~~~ Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

This page is not a sandbox

I've just added the red box ("This page is an early adopter...") to the page header, below {{Flow-enabled}} as we've been getting a few more test edits. I'm aware the header area is looking quite busy - perhaps we should remove the "To do" template. Any thoughts? WaggersTALK 13:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC) (Edited by Baffle gab1978 (talk))

Waggers: Good idea! I've merged the two, so that WPBreakfast can benefit, and it's shorter overall. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Waggers: Much better. Thanks WaggersTALK 08:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you make the wikiproject banner hide itself? It doesn't add anything for the reader, afaict. Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The wikiproject banner is redundant to the title. Could that go? (posted yesterday but lost to the ether?) Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hroðulf: Done. WaggersTALK 10:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

WP Netley proposal

FYI, there's been a proposal to create a WikiProject Netley, see the proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Netley 70.24.244.161 (talk) 05:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Bit of a strange idea if you ask me - too localised for a project. It would make a lot more sense for it to be a task force of this project. We haven't really gone for task forces yet.

That said, even then I think it's too localised / arbitrary a subject area. A Borough of Eastleigh task force would make more sense to me (along with similar task forces for the other council districts). I'd be interested to know what others think. WaggersTALK 12:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello sorry for very late reply, I'm the creator of WikiProject Netley. I could make it less localised and make it a task force for you if you want at a later date. I think the WikiProject is a good idea because most articles about Netley and the local area are not very good as they are Start or Stub class.

Thank you

-JoshCooler- JoshCooler (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Update on Flow trial: what's new, what's next

Greetings, WikiProject Hampshire!

Now that you've had a chance to use Flow in your discussion space, we wanted to check in and see how you feel about the current set of features.

Recap of work to date

As a quick recap, in the past 4 weeks, we've updated the visual design and behavior of some of our features per your and other users' feedback:

• permanent reply and edit buttons instead of hover buttons
• moderation actions and permalinks moved into a menu instead of appearing on hover
• darker body text
• tighter spacing between posts and topics
• third level of indentation for posts (code currently live on mediawiki.org and set to kick in here later this week)
• found and fixed many bugs

Check out the screenshots of the first iteration and the second iteration of the visual design/UI of Flow, to see our progress.

What's next

We're still just getting started with the visual design and features of Flow. We're currently working on an overhaul of our frontend code and design, which will make it look better across multiple screens (large and small) and more browsers. You can see the early stages of this work in this prototype: http://area51.yar.gs/wmf/flow1/#, including a new navigational feature to the right of discussions. In addition, we'd like to do the following in the next month or so:

• add in-board search feature (you can see it in the prototype above)
• add a feature to summarize and close topics
• add the "thanks" feature for posts
• continue improving moderation, history, and watchlist items

Do you still want to help?

• If you'd like to keep using Flow here, let us know what you'd like us to prioritize next that would make it better for you! We're interested in hearing what new features you'd like to see, as well changes to the existing features and design.

If you'd like to end the trial and return to using a talk page here, just let us know, and we can return your Flow posts to wikitext. Whatever you choose, thanks for trying out the software and helping us improve it! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Quiddity (WMF): Thanks for the update. One of the reasons I thought this project would make a good candidate for adopting Flow early was because we're a relatively quiet project in terms of talk page volume, so testing something new wouldn't be too disruptive. The flip-side of that is of course that by being a relatively low volume talk page we haven't been able to fully put Flow through its paces.

That said, I think it's working very well here. It's much easier to post comments here than it used to be with the old Wikitext interface, and I think the improvements to the layout are excellent. The permanent reply button in particular is an important step forward.

I'd like us to continue using Flow here as there seems no good reason not to.

I think the in-board search feature is an important new feature to have. What would be really useful is if it would also the pre-Flow talk page archive. It's not such an issue for this project but I can think of other talk pages where the same topics come up time and again, and people are asked to search the archives before repeating the same conversations over again. WaggersTALK 13:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Unassessed articles

I've noticed the unassessed article count is currently sitting at 43. I've just been through and assessed all those but unfortunately it looks like the page to get the bot to update immediately is currently down. Hopefully next time the bot runs we should be back to zero unassessed articles though. WaggersTALK 15:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Fareham / Welbourne

Hi folks. I've noticed there's a bit of a slow burning battle going on at the Fareham article, related to this talk thread. It seems to be proceeding in reasonably good faith so far but I'll try and keep an eye on it. Would appreciate it if other project members do likewise. WaggersTALK 12:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Basingstoke GAR

Just a heads-up that Basingstoke (currently listed as a good article) is having its Good Article status reviewed. If you'd like to take part in the review, or (even better) take any necessary remedial action, please do so. As one of the most prominent settlements in the county the article merits High Importance on our scale, and it would be good to make sure our top/high importance articles are as good as they can be. WaggersTALK 13:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Hydrology of Hampshire

I've created the above navigation template; any help with adding it to the relevant articles, and adding new ones (I'm sure I've missed some of the wetlands articles and we must have more notable ordinary watercourses) would be much appreciated. WaggersTALK 11:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Now wouldn't it be useful if we could click that link (or if we didn't have the dead as a dodo flow test here anymore)... Fram (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Fram: If I'd included the link in the text instead of the heading, you would be able to. My bad. WaggersTALK 06:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

{{Hydrology of Hampshire}} — HHHIPPO 19:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I've now added the template to all the linked articles but there may be more relevant articles that we need to include on the template. WaggersTALK 07:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

GA article being reassessed: Basingstoke

(Topic title edited by ―Mandruss ☎, — HHHIPPO)

The following was posted on the project page since this talk page doesn't seem to be editable for everybody:

Please transfer to talkpage

There's a problem for me with the talkpage: I have no edit facility there, so I'm posting this here - please transfer it to the talkpage.

GA article being reassessed: Basingstoke

Basingstoke was reviewed and listed in Aug 2007. It has been tagged with sourcing concerns since June 2012. I have done a GAR, which indicates that the article doesn't meet GA criteria. The main contributors have been notified, though are unavailable, so work has not been done. Following the guidelines at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, this WikiProject is being informed as editing assistance will be needed to prevent the article being delisted. See Talk:Basingstoke/GA1 for more details. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC) — HHHIPPO 19:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep, this is mentioned in the "Basingstoke GAR" topic below.

Wonder why SilkTork (thought) they couldn't add a topic to this page - I guess the lack of an "Edit" tab was offputting and the "Start a new topic" box isn't hugely prominent. I'll mention it at WT:FLOW - maybe they can add a "new topic" tab where the "Edit" tab used to be. WaggersTALK 11:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Assessment

Looks like there's been an influx of newly {{hants}}-tagged articles that need assessment. 130 at present with no class or importance! I'll get started... WaggersTALK 11:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

All assessed for quality now. We still have quite a few articles awaiting assessment for importance though. WaggersTALK 09:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Portsmouth Wikimeetup

This is just a heads up to anyone who is in the area that the first Wikimedia meetup in Portsmouth will be happening on 29 June 2014.

Full details are on the event page on Meta at [m:Meetup/Portsmouth/1 m:Meetup/Portsmouth/1]. All are welcome, but please do not feel pressured into coming if it is not your thing.

For those not in the south Hampshire area, there are other meetups regularly around the UK and elsewhere in the world. The sidebar and footer on the linked meta page contain the list of planned meets. ~~~~ Thryduulf (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup listing

There's a really useful tool that lists articles tagged by a wikiproject that have cleanup tags on them. Our listing is now up and running, and can be found here. There's also a link to it towards the bottom of our project page.

I can see this being a really useful way of improving the quality of WP:HANTS articles and focussing our efforts. WaggersTALK 07:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

July 10 Flow Update

Please see News and Notes, at Wikipedia talk:Flow#July 10 Flow Update, for the major update today. Feedback there is appreciated. Thanks. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

New Forest good articles?

Looking at the map of FAs and GAs, the one district of Hampshire that doesn't have any is the New Forest. Should we select an article to work on together to bring up to GA standard? Or perhaps there's a New Forest article that's already up to scratch that we should submit for GA assessment? What do you think? WaggersTALK 12:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps Lyndhurst would be a good place to start? The content is mostly already there but could do with copyediting. Lyndhurst is looking in better shape compared to other towns such as New Milton and Fordingbridge. JAGUAR  15:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Back in 2006 the New Forest article itself was a good article nominee (but failed) - do you think Lyndhurst is a better bet? WaggersTALK 10:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

They seem both interesting targets, the New Forest needs a major cleanup and prose restructuring but Lyndhurst just needs a copyedit. The content is all there, it just needs cleaning up... I'll get to copyediting Lyndhurst tomorrow? JAGUAR  18:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep, let's go for Lyndhurst WaggersTALK 14:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll start up improving Lyndhurst tomorrow. There are also no GAs in the Hart District. JAGUAR  17:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Good spot re Hart. Sorry I haven't managed to find time to spend on Lyndhurst yet but will muck in when I can. WaggersTALK 08:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Old maps and views of the South-East

As you might have seen in the Signpost last week, there's currently a drive to go through the million 19th century images released by the British Library last year, and identify all the maps, with a view to their being georeferenced by BL volunteers, and then uploaded to Commons early next year. After the first week, over eight thousand new maps have been identified, with 40% of the target books looked at -- see the status page for the latest figures, and more information.

A part that may specifically interest this project is

c:Commons:British Library/Mechanical Curator collection/Synoptic index/England - South East

which currently shows pink templated links for 309 Flickr book pages still to be looked at. (Though there are lots of other parts of England, and indeed of the world, still to be looked through as well).

Any help looking through these would be very much appreciated -- as well as the maps (and ground plans) for tagging, you may well also find other interesting or useful non-map views that may be worth considering or [:c:Commons:British_Library/Mechanical_Curator_collection#Uploading_to_Commons uploading] for articles on Hampshire and elsewhere in the South-East. (If uploading, please use the [:c:Commons:British_Library/Mechanical_Curator_collection#Image_descriptions ingestion template described here], which sets up some appropriate image templates and categories).

Thanks, Jheald (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC) Jheald (talk) 21:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the Hampshire stuff is done now but this is still a great resource to look at. I recently started the Grove Place article off the back of seeing an image of it in that collection and doing a little more research. I'd never heard of the place before seeing that image. I've also found some great images for other existing articles, such as Northam Bridge, King Edward VI School, Southampton and North Stoneham Park. I'm sure there are plenty more we can make good use of. WaggersTALK 15:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)