Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pr3st0n (talk | contribs) at 06:19, 13 October 2009 (→‎Unrated Articles: completed rating task). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Tagging and assessment

Congratulations on the new WP. One of the biggest tasks to begin with is tagging and assessing articles so that they become part of the WikiProject. I recently got WP:MILLS up and running so have experience of this. I've just tagged List of windmills in Lancashire for this WP. I was wondering why you haven't got an assessment section on your project page. Anyway, good luck with the project. Mjroots (talk) 09:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I'm not stepping on anyone's toes, or jumping the gun, but to help us get a handle on this tagging and assessment and to see just how the project's progressing I've added a new Assessment and progress of articles section to the main page, based on the one used by the GM project. It already makes interesting reading; of the 101 articles tagged so far there are two FAs and one GA. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question but I see from the assessment classes that this project doesn't seem to be going to aim for any A class articles WP:A?. Is there a reason for this? NtheP (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lostock Hall now up for GA nomination.

I've just submitted the Lostock Hall article up for GA nomination... fingers-crossed it gets it. Pr3st0n (talk) 21:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blackpool!

I'm disappointed at the state the Blackpool article is in. This town is one of England's most interesting, best known and culturally important, let alone NW England, or even Lancashire! Surely this has got to be a Top priority for this project? Not only is it a major sea-side town, but also a local government district, of course. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JZA84, I can add this to my list of things to work on if you like?! I'm already working on improving the Preston article, so I don't mind adding Blackpool too. It's not that far, and I have heard from people in Preston, as well as Lostock Hall, that plans had been suggested to rename Blackpool's airport to "Blackpool-Preston Airport", now that Preston is a city - something similar to Leeds Bradford International Airport. I can do some background checks on this, and see if it is true, which if it is, would help both Preston and Blackpool's articles. Let me know! (Gareth aka Pr3st0n (talk) 01:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

It could be very well true, as RockFm have adverts that say about Preston and Blcakpool and all the things they are famous for so maybe it could be the start or tying them together!?Bankhallbretherton (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bot tagging

It would be advisable to submit a request for a bot to tag articles for this project. To that end I have created a list of Lancashire-related categories at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria/Categories/Lancashire. All articles in these categories should fall under our scope (assuming we want to include Lancashire people, otherwise I'll remove those ones), though there's a few at the end of the list which I've marked as "not sure". It would be good if someone could cast an eye over this and give it the thumbs up, then of course I'll have to create another list for Cumbria-related categories. Small-town hero (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At a quick glance, on the whole, the list looks good to me, and it's probably correct to exclude the categories you marked as "not sure". (Best for a human to look inside those categories instead of a bot.)
I would also exclude Category:Forest of Bowland on the grounds that it includes a small number of places in North Yorkshire. I'd hope all the Lancashire articles in that category would also be in some other Lancashire category.
I'd suggest excluding Category:History of Lancashire as that includes many articles outside the modern-day boundaries and I think it's better for a human to decide than a bot. In this early stage of the project it might be better to defer a decision on historical articles until later.
I'm not sure about all the People from..., that could be a large number of articles where in some cases the connection with Lancashire is minimal. What do others think?
For bot tagging we ought to err on the side of caution and tag too few rather than too many. We can always tag more later. -- Dr Greg  talk  23:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good call, I've removed the two categories you mention from the list. I'll leave the people categories for now pending further comment. Small-town hero (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the "people from" categories from the list for now; as you say, best to err on the side of caution. If there are no more comments, I'll submit a bot request tommorrow. Small-town hero (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I weeded out a few more categories that may contain undesirable articles. Bot request has now been made here. Small-town hero (talk) 11:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see the bot has now started. At the time I write this, it has already tagged nearly 500 articles and it's only got as far as "Gr..." (in alphabetical order). I understand that a second pass by the bot will later auto-assess as "stub" class any article with a stub template, but that hasn't started yet. I assume that a similar exercise for Cumbria will follow, otherwise the project will look biased! :) Perhaps we can start assembling a Cumbria category list now, so we can submit it later once the Lancs bot has finished and we have reviewed how successful it was. (I'll be on a wiki-break for at least the next week, so I'm making this comment now instead of waiting for the bot to finish.) -- Dr Greg  talk  21:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll make a start on the Cumbria list as soon as I can. :) Small-town hero (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there guys. The Lancashire articles should now be marked. And the ones with stub templates should be classed as such (note that not all the stubs may have been got, since I had to write my own RegEx to look for the stub tags). If you want me to run KingpinBot again for the Cumbria articles, I'd be more than happy to do so, if not, then you can request at WP:BOTR again, or ask another bot in this category. Also, a thank you goes to you as this task has helped me improve the way in which I'll run the bot in future; I won't need to do two passes in the future. And during it I've been having a look at the stub templates, to perfect the RegEx. Best, - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bot tagging for Cumbria articles

The category list for Cumbria is now done: see Wikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria/Categories/Cumbria. Again, it would be good if someone else could review the list before I put in a request to have articles in these categories tagged for the project. Small-town hero (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can the bot be asked to add the words "|importance=" when inserting the template? Having done 300+ initial assessments over the last couple of days I've got a bit fed up with having to add this every time :) NtheP (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why not. Nice work with the assessments! :) Small-town hero (talk) 23:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lancashire dialect and accent

Although I'm not a member of this wikiproject (I am a member of The Greater Manchester one however) I have added a project header to the above article and given it a C rating for quality and High for importance. I've done some work on it, such as rearrangement of sections, and added some references but it really could do with some more work and it's obviously of importance to this wikiproject. Richerman (talk) 10:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lancashire's Architecture??

Just a note to say that architecturally Lancashire has alot of stunning buildings! I have already created this page called Listed buildings in Lancashire but this could be changed to an architecture page unless it is just kept under this name and we redirect Lancashire Architecture (which doesnt exist yet) to it!? Bankhallbretherton (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is fine, but there's no reason why it couldn't become a seperate article in the future. An article about the architecture of Lancashire is not necessarily the same thing as a list of listed buildings. Small-town hero (talk) 10:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I very much so agree, I shall make it my project to make a new page for it all! just a plan to see how it should be set out. Will discuss that on the page talk its self though, will start it later today hopefully! Bankhallbretherton (talk) 10:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm subscribing this project to the popular pages listings. It might be of use to know which of our articles get the most page hits! The request key is la88096 in case anyone else wants to edit the request. Small-town hero (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of castles in Greater Manchester

This list has been tagged as coming under the interest of this project, presumably because one of the categories it is in is category:Castles in Lancashire. While this might have been the case before Greater Manchester was created I'm not so sure that it is now anything to do with Lancs & Cumbria. Should it stay or should it go? NtheP (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This list should be removed from our scope as it is to do with something from about Greater Manchester and nothing about Lancashire/Cumbria. This WikiProject does not deal with historical Lancashire but modern Lancashire. I have removed it fromn our scope. Thanks for bringing this matter up. 93gregsonl2 (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the list can go. What about the castles on the list, though? I'm inclined to think that they should be categorised as Category:Castles in Greater Manchester (and likewise for castles in Merseyside), though I'm not sure how that would apply to, say, Liverpool Castle, which had long ceased to exist before the creation of Merseyside. It all begs the larger question of whether or not our scope is limited to the current county boundaries. Small-town hero (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lancashire weavers' riots

This has recently appeared as a redlink. Does anybody know or plan to tackle this? The Lancashire Cotton Famine is also another interesting topic for this project to consider. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

→ I have put the Lancashire Cotton Famine in our scope. But what importance should it be? Greater Manchester's WikiProject has put it to high, should we do the same? 93gregsonl2 (talk) 14:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Food

What's the project line on Lancastrian or Cumbrian food products? Things like Lancashire cheese and it's derivatives, Eccles cakes, Cumberland sausage etc? NtheP (talk) 08:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say yes. Lancashire hotpot and Kendal Mint Cake are two others I can think of off the top of my head. I'm surprised we don't have Category:Lancastrian cuisine or Category:Cumbrian cuisine. If we can pull together enough articles, perhapse these are categories we should create? Small-town hero (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unrated Articles

It has come to my attention that there are loads of artciles under our scope that have not yet been rated for their importance. This needs to be delt with. We need to insure that all articles under our scope are rated in importance.

You can help by having a look at this link: Link

As discused eariler we said that all: villages are medium. Hamlets are low Schools are low

We have not yet discused other topics, but I think you can take an educated guess for the others.

If anyone has a problem or needs help rating an article please don't be affraid to write it here and the WP comminuty will help you. Thanks. I am looking forward to our contribtions. 93gregsonl2 (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of other examples in the Importance Scale on the front page. Small-town hero (talk) 01:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a big start for you, and managed to rate loads - will add this to my "things to do list" and will rate/grade everything that is left in that list. Pr3st0n (talk) 05:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, just got it from approx 800 down to 621. Not bad for a couple of hours work :-) Should hopefully have the entire unrated list vanished by the end of the week, and everything will have a rating of some sorts. Pr3st0n (talk) 05:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very good. There may be a Banistar coming your way soon... 93gregsonl2 (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Between us we have Unrated by class is down to 152, unrated by importance is 574 (most of which will be stubs). So overall we have 89.4% of articles assessed. But this is only Lancs articles, the bot to identify Cumbria articles has yet to be run! Having rated 450+ articles in the last week I can categorically (forgive the pun) state we have some really good stuff out there and some real dross! NtheP (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I had noticed a lot of dull articles, many of which were just one-liners; but hey, it all helps towards the greater project I suppose. You say the bot hasn't even started on the Cumbria stuff yet? I had noticed the bot put some "Yorkshire" articles into the Lancs stuff, I wasn't sure whether to remove those or not, but I have made a list (stored on my PC) if you want them vamooshed. 93gregson12, I'd be delighted to gain a barnstar, if you're offering ;-). Ooh, I feel the whip cracking again, back to rating the unrated. Pr3st0n (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it until Wednesday before I put in a bot request to have Cumbria articles tagged -- I'd feel better if someone else could review the category list first so we can keep false posititives to a minimum. There are still decisioons to be made about the scope of this project, particuarly regarding historical boundaries and biographies... Small-town hero (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's sounds fine to me, I'll try and get the current unrated list completed by then, so then it won't be as heart-wrenching and mundane when the Cumbrian articles are added to it. What about football players though? I've noticed a few of those who are currently playing for teams in Lancashire, and yet they are from other parts of the UK and world. Are we still including those in the project, the bot seems to think so. Pr3st0n (talk) 01:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They shouldn't be getting tagged. :S Can you give me a few examples? Small-town hero (talk) 01:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can't remember of the names now, will have to check through my contributions for them, there were a couple of dozen that I came across. Want me to track them down again, and remove the "Lancs & Cumbria" project tag from them? Pr3st0n (talk) 01:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think one of them was a player for Preston North End F.C., who use to play for Celtic too. Pr3st0n (talk) 01:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you could find a few and let me know what they are, that would be great. It would be useful to know why they've been tagged; could be that the article has been miscategorised, or something. The only footballer I've seen tagged myself is Scott Carson, but that was by a user, not a bot. Small-town hero (talk) 01:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article on Ross Wallace was one - I've removed the project tag from it a minute ago. Pr3st0n (talk) 01:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it was tagged by you [1] ??? Small-town hero (talk) 01:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Got me confused as that now. I know I did the importance rating on it, but then came across a few others players too, hence why I asked above! Pr3st0n (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that Scott Carson one too, when I was going through the list that needed doing. Ross Wallace was on the same list page at the time. Are we removing project tags of football players then? Just so I know if I come across any more along the way. Pr3st0n (talk) 02:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know. :) I'm not so sure that biographies are something this project should be focusing on, but that's just my own opinion. We shouldn't be tagging articles like Ross Wallace, though; he's just a footballer who's played for Preston the last year or so. If we tagged every person who has ever played for a Lancashire/Cumbria sports team then they'd probably account for 95% or so of our articles! Small-town hero (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on the sports personality part. Its not just those biographies that I come across either; some for other people in there area are also tagged up. I came across one about an Earl who was born in London, but it had a brief menetion that he stopped in Lancashire for a month, and yet that got tagged, it even has a "bot" thing on it. I just gave it a low importance, and left the thing. Are we keeping those too? Pr3st0n (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These are some of the other biographies that I've come across with the Lancs & Cumbria project tag attached to them by the bot.

Pr3st0n (talk) 02:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

::OK got it down from 152 unrated by class to 0, and down from 574 unrated by importance to 184... not bad huh?! lol Pr3st0n (talk) 04:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As promised, I've completed the task at hand, and on schedule too. What's the next task? Pr3st0n (talk) 06
19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Premiership Football Teams in Lancashire

Personally, I think all of the premiership football teams should be hih importance (I know it is only Blackburn and Burnly). What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93gregsonl2 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure; Premier League status comes and goes, and it doesn't take into account a club's history. If this were the Greater Manchester project, would you consider Manchester United and Wigan to be of equal importance? Small-town hero (talk) 01:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. But they are now nationaly know football clubs and I think for the time being at least that they should be of a high importance as I would think such articles may get a big 'hit count' as many football supporters will have a look at Burnely FC and Blackburn FC articles, whilst they are in the Premier League and we should try to get those articles up to GA.93gregsonl2 (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newsletter

Some WikiProjects (eg. Greater Manchester) have monthly newsletters. Shoud we have one as I belive they keep all they members informed about what's going on and helps the WikiProject becomeing dead like WikiProject Cheshire has recently become semi-dead. Should we have a monttly newsletter? Who will volenteer to start one? I sadly do not have time to do one on my own but I would be glad to help in small ways. Shall we try to get one ready for the end of October issue?

Please comment on what you think.93gregsonl2 (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on local elections

What "Importance" rating are we giving articles on elections in local areas (e.g. Blackpool local elections; Chorley Council election, 1999; and Blackpool North by-election, 1962)? Personally, I would say either High or Mid; especially with elections always on-going, and many people out there (and I bet there are tonnes of them) who do political research. Pr3st0n (talk) 01:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lancashire_and_Cumbria&oldid=319575255"