Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sheffield

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wikityke (talk | contribs) at 00:19, 3 May 2009 (split to 5 volumes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

This dicussion page is for participants of the Wikipedia:Sheffield project to discuss future articles, changes to make or moves...

Buildings and Structures in Sheffield

Hey guys. I've been looking around, and I spotted {{BirminghamBuildings}}, and I wondered if Sheffield could have something similar. Anyway, I've been playing around, and have created the marvel that is this. Does anyone think that this could have a place on some articles? L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 00:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also created collapsable boxes, see

Does anyone know how I can make version 1 or 2 expand to the full width of the page, like version 3? L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 01:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's all in the class. Changing it to "navbox collapsible" should give the effect you are after. Whatever you use, Template 1 doesn't work for me, as the collapsed boxes overlap the frame. I wonder if it might be more useful, however, to split your template into multiple smaller ones: one for buildings in the city centre, one for sports venues, etc? Having so much in one template seems to make it more difficult to find the area of interest, and having more specific templates would allow a more comprehensive treatment of each section. Warofdreams talk 01:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, template 1 wasn't it for me either. Like I say, the main thing I wanted was for it to look like no2 (with the box round it), but be the full page width like no3. L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 02:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tried that warofdreams - didn't work. L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 17:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to "navbox", which for this template should have the same effect. Does it still not fill the width of the page for you? It does on my browser. Warofdreams talk 12:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Warofdream, job done! I've added ver2 of this template to the mainspace at {{SheffieldStructures}}, and also to a few articles. If anyone thinks it needs a few more/fewer buildings, then say so.
I was wondering about the "Stations past and present" section, Is this worth having, since it basically duplicates (an in inferior manner) {{Sheffield stations}}? Maybe it'd be better to have a section here on infrastructure or transport in Sheffield, and include the major roads (if they have articles, ie Sheffield Inner Ring Road, A57 road, M1 motorway), stations, and the Supertram? L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 01:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently adding a number of pages relating to the work of Aedas who are responsible for the design of the Wicker Riverside building which is currently nearing completion. I don't have time right now but would be more than hppy to try out your templates on the article I will be writing for Wicker Riverside. If you want to view my current work search for Aedas. There is an image of Wicker Riverside on that page.

78.148.193.240 (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Adsetts

I created this page some time back (when new to Wikipedia) and rather thought he was obviously notable as SIG plc (a page I didn't create) is presumably notable. There is the Adsetts building at SHU for instance, prominent from Midland Station/supertram. The Adsetts are 100% Sheffield (there used to be Adsetts Ice Cream in the 50s). I haven't looked into notability criteria for business people. Anyway the article has been PRODded so I wondered if anyone has any views. I expect he's in Who's Who but have no copy to hand. -- roundhouse 15:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People from Categories

A discussion has been opened at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London#Category:People from Ealing by district about upmerging local area categories for People from... into current local government boundaries only. This could have implications across the whole of England if carried through. Your are invited to join the discussion. The proposer is planning a massive merge by 22nd June if no objections are received. --Regan123 11:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notre Dame High School (Sheffield)

Notre Dame High School (Sheffield) has attracted various large boxes re notability etc. I've made various additions and added refs but still the box-ist is dissatisfied - does anyone have any further info or refs? (It seems very notable to me; listed building, connections with Mark Firth etc.) -- roundhouse0 12:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of schools has been a point of contention at Wikipedia for a long time, and may never be settled. There are many who think that all schools are inherently notable--though this is far from being the majority opinion (there is a good summary of various opinions towards the end of the talk page at WP:SCHOOL). Personally, I think that schools should be subject to the same notability criteria as everything else, but I would think that Notre Dame meets these criteria. Cite sources for all the major facts in the article and it should be OK—if the 'box-ist' is still not satisfied take it to WP:RfC. Alternatively you could AfD it to get consensus on notability, however, it appears that the article previously survived AfD so probably that wouldn't satisfy the 'box-ist'. The Pevsner Guide has some information about Oakbrook so I'll add a citation to that later. —Jeremy (talk) 13:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did consult WP:SCHOOL which seems to suggest that listed buildings are a sufficient claim. (I have no connection with Notre Dame school.) I would personally support inherent notability for any UK secondary school ... obviously it's the new ones such as Sheffield Park Academy which get all the publicity and google hits, google giving a relatively poor coverage to the press c.1855 when Notre Dame started. -- roundhouse0 14:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal

As some may have noticed, I have created a portal for the Yorkshire project. I have the basic shell up, so if anyone wants to lend a hand, feel free. Cheers! Fl1942 14:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Middlewood

Hello,

I found the Middlewood article on the notability backlog. It would probably best be merged into the article of the appropriate ward. But which is it? Districts of Sheffield says it's Hillsborough, but Hillsborough, South Yorkshire does not list it. --B. Wolterding 15:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have assumed Middlewood to be in Hillsborough ward, however, the word Middlewood is marked on the council's ward maps in Stannington ward.[1] I'm not sure how large an area is actually encompassed by Middlewood—it looks to be just a few streets to the north of the old hospital. —Jeremy (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Vaughan

No longer reside in Dore. Mike0001 13:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a source? — jacĸrм (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stations Sheffield Midland to Dore

On the pages for these stations (Heeley,Millhouses and Beauchief) it mentions four platforms/running lines, two fast and two slow, but my understanding was that before the 1970s MAS resignalling there were a pair of lines for trains to Chesterfield->London and a pair for trains using the Hope Valley line. However before the opening of the Hope Valley line it may have been the case that there were slow and fast lines/platforms. Does anyone have any comments on me altering these? Talltim (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It amounts to the same thing. The Midland - London via Chesterfield and the MML New Road was effectively intercity/fast, whilst the Midland - Manchester via Hope Valley was a commuter/slow line, stopping at a lot of little village stations on the way. L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 13:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not so convinced. In the past, when the stations existed slow trains would have stopped there on their way to Dronfield, Unstone, Chesterfield, Clay Cross etc) Not all trains using the MML would have been expresses. I'm sure there is a bit about in Batty's Rail Centres: SHEFFIELD Talltim (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There were local services from Sheffield to Derby and Nottingham. On the 1900–1902 quadrupling of the tracks Batty states "... the original twin tracks being given over to Manchester trains and a new double line being built alongside, to the east" (p. 53), but later on the de-quadrupling he states "nearer to Sheffield Midland, the 1900 dive-under which took the down fast line under the up and down slow lines was taken out of use from 25 June 1972" (p. 122). Maybe many of the Sheffield–Derby/Nottingham trains skipped these stations? —Jeremy (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking that up, I meant to do it myself, but not yet had time. Sounds like the Batty book can't really be used as a definative source for this (good book as it is), or possibly the working pattern changed over time. Talltim (talk) 13:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sheffield derby

This article seems quite redundent. The Steel City derby covers the major derby and i've create Rules derby to cover the one between Sheffield and Hallam. The Sheffield derby should probably redirect to Steel City derby (possibly with a disambiuation message at the top for the Rules derby). Any objections or other ideas? josh (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sheffield Albion F.C.

In creating articles about early England footballers, I often come across references to Sheffield Albion F.C. but there is no article about this (defunct) club on WP, nor can I find much on the net as a whole. Can anyone add a brief history into the Defunct football clubs in Sheffield article? Cheers. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some stations (and WP:RM)

I have just gone on a moving spree although these should be uncontroversial. I have been moving many of the Closed stations just to ... railway station.

I have decided to do a requested move on these shown below:

See Talk:Sheffield Victoria Station

Simply south (talk) 13:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neighbourhoods revisited

Back in 2005 I merged a lot of neighbourhood articles into articles about wards because 1) they were mostly very short stub articles and I felt that better articles could be written if a larger area was included, and 2) wards appeared to have official, verifiable boundaries which made it much easier to determine what was in which ward, whereas the boundaries of neighbourhoods seemed fuzzy and open to discussion. I just discovered that the city council has added neighbourhood profiles to its website (see [2]) that include boundary maps and population data. Does it make sense then break out more neighbourhood articles? —Jeremy (talk) 20:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, yes, I'd like to see more, in-depth, neighbourhood articles (linked from the summarised Ward articles). After all, the neighbourhoods existed, as hamlets etc., far before the modern wards (which are still subject to change, according to the changing political climate). Wikityke (talk) 00:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having said that, I've just had a look at some of the SCC maps, and have some doubts. For example, has anyone else heard of "Housteads" as a traditional district of the city? Bowden-Housteads Woods, yes, but Housteads dsitrict? (where's Bowden ?  ;-) ).Wikityke (talk) 00:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a few districts didn't really ever exist as hamlets (Hillsborough, for example), but otherwise I agree fully with Wikityke. Articles on neighbourhoods would be good, and most of the SCC neighbourhoods are fairly logical areas, but a few aren't really suitable. If we do move to articles on neighbourhoods, can I suggest doing what ever other city does, and use the {{Infobox UK place}}? Warofdreams talk 01:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a fan of the UK place box. The majority of information applies to the whole of Sheffield and it fails to include other useful info such as the ward and when the area became part of the town/city. It would also be more useful to show their location on a map of Sheffield. josh (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If those are your only objections, they can be easily remedied. I've implemented a map of Sheffield, and I can't imagine there would be opposition to adding the ward as an option for the infobox. I think that the date the area became part of the city needs explanation; for example, how do you decide when places such as Hillsborough or Attercliffe became part of the city (Hillsborough - southern part of Sheffield since it was developed, northern part some date in early C20?, Attercliffe - part of parish of Sheffield since its creation probably in twelfth century, but was long a separate township). Finally, I don't see that some of the information applies to the whole of Sheffield (and it's really only administration and emergency services; the constituency, postcode and phone number all vary) as an issue - for example, we usually state in the article that the suburb lies in South Yorkshire and the City of Sheffield, so why not in an infobox? Warofdreams talk 13:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the infobox to High Bradfield and Handsworth, South Yorkshire as examples, and it was already used in Ringinglow. How does it look? Would the ward be useful? Any other information? Warofdreams talk 13:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those boxes show my point. Only 2 of the items (postal area and constituency) vary from area to area. They are drowned in a mass of fields about county wide institutions. Anyone looking at these articles will either already know about Sheffield or would expect to get those details from the Sheffield article. If your looking for the distinct details of each area then they are going to be made more inaccessible due to the amount of repetitive material in the infobox.
Hillsborough wasn't annexed until 1919. Although the name is sometimes used for parts of Sheffield prior to that the area given by SCC is restricted to the immediate area of Hillsborough Corner. The borough/city would be used for annexation dates. Prior to the creation of the borough the town of Sheffield had no official boundary. Transport links and distance from the city centre would also be useful additions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshurtree (talk • contribs) 15:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I don't see it that way at all. If I follow a link to Dore or Bradfield, I wouldn't expect to have to look at the Sheffield article to find relevant information. In addition to the postal code and constituency, the co-ordinates and the location on the map change, as do the parish and population. While the information placing it in Sheffield doesn't change, it's pretty essential for the article. In addition, the Fox House area has a Hope Valley phone number, so it is worth stating that the remainder of Sheffield is all 0114. So the only non-essential items which don't change are the emergency services and European constituency. One issue with writing articles is that people tend only to put in what is distinct about an area - because it is more interesting and more easily referenced - and tend to omit what is less unusual.
A distance from the city centre might be useful, and could certainly be implemented, but I'd worry that it would be very difficult to reference. Do you have a proposal for how transport links would fit into an infobox? Wouldn't this kind of detail be better placed in the body of the article?
What you say about Hillsborough is interesting and would be ideal to put in the article, but it rather proves my point about it being difficult to explain all that in an infobox. Prior to the creation of the borough, of course the town was administered by various bodies covering different areas, but I would have assumed that being part of Sheffield would refer to either the parish or the township. I'm not too concerned how annexations is covered, and agree that they should be mentioned, but this will need more explanation than an infobox can provide. Warofdreams talk 19:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just wishing to add my tuppenth-worth really. I do think that now we can have officially-designated boundaries, we can now start creating articles about them but, I do think we need to add to the sub-sections on the ward articles first, and then expand out/demerge only as the need arises (which it may not). This also gets us conveniently around the problem of "whoever heard of Housteads/Granville?" etc.
Another concern I have is the naming or articles as 'X, South Yorkshire'. We should either disambiguate with the borough council in which they are located, or the post-town (I'd favour post-town, as it is more useful to a reader). Saying 'Hillsborough, South Yorksire' implies that Hillsborough is a town in it's own right, whereas adding 'Sheffield' denotes it as a suburb.
Infoboxes. I personally like them, as they provide familiarity and a consistent look across all articles, but we would need some Sheffield-specific sections, such as ward and distance from the city centre (we'd need to decide where the 'centre' is)
Finally, i do not know who, if anyone, sanctioned a template for the districts, but one has turned up {{Districts of Sheffield}} which I think unnecessary (certainly at the moment). What do people think? L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 17:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on when to de-merge articles. There's no advantage in creating a large number of stubs, while on the other hand, (for example) the excellent articles created by Mick Knapton would in no way benefit from being merged back in to the ward articles.
The South Yorkshire suffix follows Wikipedia's policy for all places in the UK with names which require disambiguation. A proposal which would have seen suburbs disambiguated by city was rejected, so changing this would really require substantial discussion elsewhere.
On the infobox, please put any suggestions at Template talk:Infobox UK place. I'll be happy to add any which gain approval - and I would certainly support the ward proposal.
Finally, I see that a discussion is under way elsewhere on the Districts of Sheffield template, so I'll leave discussion of that there. Warofdreams talk 02:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sheffield City Council website not a reliable source

A few of our articles use facts and figures that are cited to the Sheffield City Council website. However, reading their Sheffield profile pages [3] I noticed that they are copying their facts and figures (not to mention much of the actual text) from the Sheffield article. Although clearly only a small part of their website is copied from here, perhaps we should be cautious when using them as a source given the potential for circular sourcing. —Jeremy (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High Storrs School (Sheffield)

In the article on High Storrs School (Sheffield), in the infobox, it states that the school was established in 1933. In the text, it states that the school was established in 1880 and moved to its present site in 1933. Which is correct? Coyets (talk) 12:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suspect the latter. L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 03:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
High Storrs School was established in 1933, but it used to be the Sheffield Central School between 1880 and 1933, when it was sited on Leopold Street. It was renamed High Storrs when it moved to its present site. The article maybe doesn't reflect this as well as it could. Pigetrational (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Companies of Sheffield & Former Companies

The list of companies of Sheffield has several that other than being a business with a branch in Sheffield (as most major firms have) are of no significance unless i missing something. As having looked at there web sites they do not list Sheffield.


Former Sheffield companies; There are a lot of companies of significance historically that started in Sheffield or had major branches / factories here. Should these not be also listed here till they get too big a list and then split. A lot of thes firms have now been taken over or gone bust. The cutlery and tool industry was significant but is poorly represented on here as far as i can see. (could be my search criteria, as you need the answer to ask the question in some cases of weird titles).


Significant Sheffield business premises; Atlas works, Hecla works, Cyclops,etc. As a lot of the redevelopment takes place the sites of these former premises ae disappearing but have cross reference value, to companies as discussed above. BulldozerD11 (talk) 03:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi There Mr BulldozerD11. D I know you from somewhere? ;)
I wholeheartedly agree. Some things, such as the Border and Immigration Agency, are frankly rubbish. this is a central government decision, not a Sheffield business.
The section need proof-reading, developing and a ruthless deleter to make any sense, or it may as well not exist.. L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 03:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lewis we may have crossed before in Cyber space :)
Have split list in two and started checking relevance of co's listed.
Started a box like you did for buildings and looking for more Sheffield companies to add ( ones with articles if poss). Have a look at box in my talk/sandbox (Has blank place holders and ,sup. code left from original as considering coding entries) Not sure on format of how to split up Current and Defunct 2 separate boxes may be better and then sub divided into categories, but not sure on subdivisions to use.
There are a lot of articles out there that have a Sheffield relavence but not liinked to Sheffield, often created as part of other niche interest projects --BulldozerD11 (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like what you've done there Bully. I also like the companies template in your sandbox - a great idea, and probably a good starting base. Maybe when I have more time I ought to take a wander around the Brightside/Attercliffe area and photograph some of the old warehouses before they make way for development.
Additional discussion on the template's talk page. L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 11:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tracked down articles for more companies and linked them now in the template for Sheffield companies. Can people check it out and comment, Not sure on split of sections. Is it possible to split box in 2 For current and Former, with the Trade sections repeated in each, with a Header Block across the split ?
Probably requires some of the companies moving to Former (defunct) section, Need to find some source data to write missing articles, with a bit of body to them to avoid a rush of AfD tags. BulldozerD11 (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article Assessments / Importance Grading

Noticed that a lot of the WikiProjects have a Assessment / Grading system on articles why is this not applied to Sheffield articles ?

Should the WikiProject Sheffield tag be applied to all Sheffield related pages found, as the project scope appears to imply that this is a reasonable action, or does this generate too many article to Audit ? BulldozerD11 (talk) 01:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An assessment/grading system is useful for co-ordinating a lot of active members - I don't think the Sheffield wikiproject is quite busy enough to require it. And if the assessments/grades aren't carefully maintained by a lot of active members then they'll just get out of date and lose whatever use they initially had, I reckon.
On the other hand, I reckon tagging all Sheffield-related articles so they can all be easily found from the wikiproject page is useful, and fair game even where somebody outside the wikiproject has written the article. --VinceBowdren (talk) 10:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sound a fair comment on the grading idea Vince, just thought i would ask having see it used else were on here.
I will tag Sheffield related article i come across, as often they only have limited links, and others may know more article they can be linked to or expand them. As seen a couple of items over zealously tagged for deletion before they can grow into useful article with a bit of work. If people are not aware of article how can they link to them thus defeating the aim of expanding the range of article in the encyclopaedia. Some sections appear to have been very heavily policed for references and others have non at all. ? ---BulldozerD11 (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

River Rivelin and Rivelin Valley

Hi All.

I came across the above two articles, and felt that they dealt with essentially the same subject matter, and with a lot of overlap. I have proposed a merge. Perhaps anyone with any feelings on the matter can raise their issues in the discussion.

(x-posted at WP:Yorkshire#River_Rivelin_and_Rivelin_Valley) L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 19:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessments

Given that proposal for Wikipedia 1.0 are moving forward, and are largely based on article ratings conducted by WikiProjects, I've set up Wikipedia:WikiProject Sheffield/Assessment and have begun assessing articles. Please feel free to assist with this, and also feel free to change my assessments if you disagree, preferably with a brief explanatory comment. If you have any questions about assessment, I'll be happy to answer them at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sheffield/Assessment or on my talk page. Warofdreams talk 20:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been keen on the whole article assessment thing, but this seems like a good reason to do it. I've added all articles linked as 'main articles' from the top level sections in Sheffield to the top priority; all grade I listed buildings as high priority; and all grade II* listed buildings as mid priority. —Jeremy (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I tend to agree with you on the article assessment thing; I've never bothered with it before, but it seems there is now a purpose to it. I also agree with your top level rankings. I don't agree that the grade at which a building is listed will always translate to a level of importance for our purposes, as the grades are based primarily on their national importance, rather than their local importance. Some of the Grade I listed buildings are important nationally and in their very local area, but of less importance to Sheffield as a whole, and some of the Grade II* buildings are barely known by most inhabitants of the city, so I'd prefer to put them down as low importance. Warofdreams talk 17:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think its the Right Move to actually assess the articles, as otherewise the adding the the Sheffield Tag was beginning to look pointless, thus I had mainly being tagging articles for other projects that were assessing articles recently ( i.e adding Yorkshire tags instead). Is there some reason why when I looked at the List of non assessed articles several were in fact assessed ?
Would comment on the above Buildings related comments that some of the lower grade building are probably a high priority locally. As With Companies for Example how can a local multi billion pound turnover firm be a low importance article ? Agree that only a few articles should rate as top level. Will also comment that the ratings given by other projects are not always relavent in the local context of project Sheffield. I'll start looking at rating some once I'ved cleared my watchlist backlog from my last 10 days wikibreak. - BulldozerD11 (talk) 01:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with almost all of that. On the companies, I could imagine a large local company being low priority if, for example, it originated elsewhere and has only a small head office in the city - I think that impact on Sheffield should be the measure, rather than size, although there will clearly be a correlation. Warofdreams talk 08:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I was using listed status as a rule of thumb, so I'm happy to see individual buildings moved up or down the scale based on local importance. —Jeremy (talk) 13:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Help - Added the Assessment table and link to Assessment page to project page, but its clashing with next section ? . Have started on the list of Un-Assessed articles and note quite a few could do with info boxes and photos which some projects boxes have parameters for and will thus generate a listing of articles needing them - any comments ? - BulldozerD11 (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sheffield Central Library - on my reading of the assessment grading, it is Start / borderline C class, as has info-box, picture, references and reasonable amount of info. i.e its more than "Sheffield Central Library is an art Deco building in Sheffield" which is the basic definition of a stub. Comment please rather than me just changing it unilateraly -BulldozerD11 (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; I've removed the stub template and re-assessed as Start class. --VinceBowdren (talk) 11:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could do with some consensus as to where to put areas of the city. At the moment Attercliffe, Broomhill, Chapeltown, Hillsborough and Woodseats are given high priority, whereas areas like Crookes, Dore, Millhouses, and Wadsley have been given mid priority. Though there is some kind of hierarchy in the areas of the city (some are larger/more well-known than others), I'm not sure how this could be judged in a non-arbitrary way. —Jeremy (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The terms used in the template of importance and priority tend to imply diferent things, as different articles are also to a differing standard (class) and thus some would have a greater need to be broght up to a higher class (standard) than others. Were as some areas are more notable and associated with "Sheffield" as a whole by both residents and outsiders (rest of world) as you say. I think we rate them and any articles we feel are wrongly rated for class or importance we add to a section on here or the assement page for review (as we dont all have them on our whatch lists yet so would not see the discusion on the talk page). See comment about central libary grading above.
Noted/Well known Sheffield Areas, Buildings, Companies, and items associated with the city that the wider world is likly to be interested in and search will rate higher than say a pub in an obscure district. Its partialy down to the what is encyclopedic. when the real questions probably to define whats not.
I added comments to some pages or to my edit summaries partialy to indicate reasoning behind discion made. Im not 100% convinced by the notes added next to the importance grades on the Assement page. Its also a balance of do you have a few excelent articles that are all FA standard and some of poor stubs, or work on turning most articles into C-class & expanding coverage i.e more useful to a wider audience than a narrow interest group that the FA articles cover.
I find i get interested in loads of different articles and often shoot off at tangents when looking at articles. Bringing nich interest articles to a wider audience by linking and navboxes, tagging etc helps to build them from a stub and expose them to more editors is probably more important the wether an article has a High or low importance any way. The importance ratings mainly useful to try and direct some editors who may be atracted to high profile articles to target effort and it helps as the gradings then have a 3D form to them. (I stop rambling now)- BulldozerD11 (talk) 01:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done appart fron 1/2 dozen football related articles. (not realy my thing)
Now clearing un classified Importance articles (things with a strong assertion to Shefield will get Mid, others low). If anyone dis agrees with asigne rating discue here or on the article talk page. Am also working at adding the structures template to the may articles listed in it that its not yet attached to, and adding missing buildings with articles. - BulldozerD11 (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've rated those last few football-related articles. There are still many articles within the scope of this project which aren't rated at all, so plenty to do! Warofdreams talk 00:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, I also helping clear Derbyshires back list and started Doing lincolnshires (Tag & assess) instead of the Tag first that i did here and Derbyshire. Keiths assessed most of the Yorkshire stuff ive tagged. I keeep plodding along the partial ones now i partialy understand these auto generated cat lists. Then can go and find loads of new articles to add to project.
What inportance would assign to Atkinsons as a well know local company ? - BulldozerD11 (talk) 00:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we could do with some agreement on what 'importance' means. All other projects that I have seen use the criteria as a guide for readers as to how specialist/general any given article is. For example, this is the scale used at WikiProject London. As BulldozerD11 notes above, the scale could also be used as a priority scale to guide editors as to which articles they should work on. I think that either is OK, but at the moment we seem to have a mixture of both (for example, why is Endcliffe Park more important than Millhouses Park?). I personally think that the introduction of 'importance' into article assessment within Wikipedia was a mistake, but if we're going to do it then we need to make sure that we are all reading from the same hymn sheet. —Jeremy (talk) 02:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats generaly what I was getting at before as I got confused by different projects and have since discovered what the main cause was/is. The template Yorkshire are using & by porting Sheffield describes it interns of priority, but uses the parameter importance inthe template code. (The two terms conveying slighty different meanings to people.) I've modified Lincolnsire template as a test but it takes time for the changes to work through (done as only a few hundred articles tagged yet, so better to fix before tagging more, as less server load). Agree the concepts slightly ambiguous, but if interpreted in the right way dose have a purpose. like the extra parameters on sume projects that generat useful lists of project specific needs identifed for articles like photo needed etc. (refs would be a good project specific parammeter to tag & flag up the state of as come across some articles rated B class with no refs section and minimal sources to speak of listed.
A general guidance section on the project/ or Assessments page is one way to go. Do we draw up a list of main topics say and then asign the general level and nominate the exceptions ? (for entry to Top and High ratings) as the rating goes part way to the scoring for bot selection for the DVD (dont think it effects this one, as initial lists already done 'I think' ?). Thats my 2pence (again) - BulldozerD11 (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sheffield article preemptive review

I just read through the Sheffield article and I think that it could do with some TLC to avoid being put up for FA review. I think that the 'Sport' and 'Culture and attractions' sections are particularly poor—the sport section reads like a collection of random facts and the culture and attractions section has almost no references. I'll try to do some work on it over the next few days, but any help would be appreciated. Thanks, —Jeremy (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just been through doing some copy edits for the DVD release and would agree with the above comments. There are several sections of the article that are unreferenced and several of the existing references are dead. I have updated the ones I can find and marked the dead ones. There is also much repetition of information through the article and I cannot work out the relation of Sheffield as a city to the City of Sheffield local authority area as the article seams to cover the two things - unless of cause the 2 are coterminus. Keith D (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Box

I've taken the step of adding a User Box for the project, but feel the background should be different from the Yorkshire one. Any Sugestions for the Colour without getting into a 'Red v Blue' debate. - BulldozerD11 (talk) 12:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the colour to white for now (the common element of the two club strips). But if anyone disagrees, please feel free to revert me. Warofdreams talk 21:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I forgot to put note here that I then picked a colour to match the Sheffield City Councils Logo Font light Blue as the green would look like the Derbyshire logo (after id added above note). But Whites probably a Safe bet - BulldozerD11 (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about a light grey to represent Stainless steel for the back ground - BulldozerD11 (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Think it would be an Idea to add a Photo parameter to the baner then we can get a list of articles that want photos adding to. (as used by some projects) instead of trying to remember which need them a list can be printed out. Any comments ? - BulldozerD11 (talk) 02:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think that many other projects go too far with all the parameters they put in their banners. It seems to me that the time they spend identifying and categorising all the things that could be done to improve the articles in their project would be better spent actually improving the articles. I kind of like the unobtrusive nature that this project has had in the past, but if we were to adopt more proactive approaches I think that doing 'collaborations of the week/month/some other time period' would be a better way to go. —Jeremy (talk) 04:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates

There are various articles in Category:South Yorkshire which could do with coordinates, if anyone feels like adding them (I find this quite interesting but others might not, of course).

The articles are in Category:South Yorkshire articles missing geocoordinate data, 199 pages at the moment. Wikipedia:Geocoding how-to for WikiProject members gives tips for doing this. (If the 'missing coords' tag is inappropriate, just remove it.)

Incidentally there is a very nice online set of OS maps from the 40s/50s such as this one for Millers Dale which mark old railway stations amongst other features. Occuli (talk) 14:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5 South Yorkshire articles are missing geocoords; this score will auto-update, please get it down to 0 --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of Sheffield

I'm thinking of making a change to the organisation of the History of Sheffield article. The change is small but it will allow for easier integration of new sections.

Currently the article is ordered roughly chronologically:

  • Lead
  • Early history
  • The origins of Sheffield
  • Mediaeval Sheffield
  • Industrial Sheffield
  • The 20th century to the present

I'm thinking of going to something like this:

  • Lead
  • Early History
    • Prehistory
    • The Romano-British period
    • The origins of Sheffield
    • The mediaeval period
  • Industry
  • The 20th century to the present

This change doesn't require any re-writing, but would allow, for example, a section on Sport, and one on Religion to be added following the Industry section. Both of these have played an important role in Sheffield's history but are difficult to write about within the current article structure. Any comments? Thanks, —Jeremy (talk) 21:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The approach of having sections covering the history of Sheffield by topic sounds good to me, my only objection would be that a casual reader might assume the article didn't include anything on general history between the mediaeval period and the twentieth century. Clearly industry was very important during this period, but there were other major influences (religion and sport, as you mention, plus politics, and perhaps some comment on social history). Each of these topics remains important to the present day, and all but perhaps sport can be discussed in the mediaeval period, too. I wonder if a structure along the lines of:
  • Lead
  • Prehistory
  • The Romano-British period
  • The origins of Sheffield
  • The mediaeval period
  • The industrial era
  • The 20th century to the present
  • History by topic
    • Industry
    • Religion
    • Sport (etc)
might work? These history by topic sections could be fairly brief with links to the main articles on each topic - which I would think should include a good historical perspective. Warofdreams talk 00:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South Yorkshire - where is it???

Hello WP:Sheffield!

I've been adding some tables and maps of the modern and former district boundaries to each of the metropolitan county articles, including South Yorkshire. These are based on the one originally at Greater Manchester, something which helped it towards WP:FA. I'm hoping to achieve a bit of consistency across the six metropolitan county articles through these additions.

As said at WP:YORKS, I'm a little horrified by the state of Yorkshire's two metropolitan county articles, and South Yorkshire was particularly bad. To say it's a "Top" priority article for WP:YORKSHIRE and one very relevant to Sheffield, I was disappointed (sorry!). I've done my best to expand it outwards a little borrowing some generic stuff about the LGA72 and metropolitan counties from Greater Manchester, but really these two pages need TLC from members of this project.

The bare bones for an FA-achieving layout, as well as generic bites about governance, structure and so on, could easily be pinched from Greater Manchester (which has all the references and page numbers listed). I'm confident also that some of the text and photographs gathered for Sheffield's impressive and extensive series of articles would be suitable for inclusion at South Yorkshire (look at Greater Manchester for ideas perhaps?). I'd be willing to help anyone with building South Yorkshire up to a B-class or GA. Hope that helps, --Jza84 |  Talk  22:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 06:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Article Alerts

Might it be a good idea to add Article Alerts to the project page? Thoughts welcome! Pigetrational (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:40, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Category:People from Sheffield (district)

DShamen (talk · contribs) has created the above category with a number of subcategories for the districts of Sheffield. (S)He is now systematicly moving all the biographies of people from Sheffield into the new categories. This seems to be over categorisation and will be hinderence to anyone looking for Sheffield biographies. It also has the problem that most people will have lived in several areas. Anyone else have any opinions? Eckerslike (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bad idea. DShamen (talk · contribs) should be asked to stop and consult; or they could all go to cfd. Occuli (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If they are being moved from the Sheffield Category to the new sub categories it is definitely a bad move as most people will not look in obscure sub cats to find people, on the bigger scale of WP people are looking for people by city not village, will confuse the issue. The article should cleary state were they are from in the lead any way. If its an new extra category then over categorisation argument is probably a reasonable one as they will have few entries in most of the areas. The Sheffield category also relates to the List of people from Sheffield as if people are not in the list, the logical place to look for them is the attached Category. - BulldozerD11 (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like DShamen has been doing this allover as numerous discussions (Messages) about issues on their talk page here User_talk:DShamen. would indicate a lot of concerns about over cating in other areas as well. - BulldozerD11 (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is exactly what he is doing - see this diff. Occuli (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Local chapter for the Wikimedia Foundation

We are Wikimedia UK - the group of local Wikimedians helping the Foundation to create
"a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge".
Love Wikipedia? Based in the UK?
Can you support us in projects such as generating free-content photographs, freeing up archive material and media relations? Or are there other projects you'd like us to help with?
if so, please click here to Join up, Donate and Get Involved

AndrewRT(Talk) 21:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Book - Sheffield

Any comments / contributions / corrections etc. will be very welcome.. Wikipedia:Books/Sheffield_UK

regards, Wikityke (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried generating the PDF (and Open Office format) document via the Wikipedia Book rendering routine without success at several points during the preparation of the book. It now has >500 wikipages so it's over the recommended limit for these formats, but even at around 250, I had no success. Maybe it should be divided in volumes (parts) 1, 2 and 3 ? Wikityke (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "Pedia Press" option can, apparently, supply, for somewhere close to US$100 ! (in 2-3 volumes) Wikityke (talk) 02:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Split into 3 parts- Wikipedia:Books/City_of_Sheffield_(Part_1_of_3), Wikipedia:Books/City_of_Sheffield_(Part_2_of_3) and Wikipedia:Books/City_of_Sheffield_(Part_3_of_3), but still can't generate a download file Wikityke (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had to divide into 5 volumes to render as PDF-
Wikipedia:Books/City of Sheffield (Volume 1 of 5)
Wikipedia:Books/City of Sheffield (Volume 2 of 5)
Wikipedia:Books/City of Sheffield (Volume 3 of 5)
Wikipedia:Books/City of Sheffield (Volume 4 of 5)
Wikipedia:Books/City of Sheffield (Volume 5 of 5)
Wikityke (talk) 00:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sheffield&oldid=287547369"