Talk:Huddersfield/Archive 1

University town?

it's a bit rich to call Huddersfield a "university town" ... there's been a university there for less than 15 years - i hardly think the university defines the town!

I agree. Maybe this is a candidate for BJAODN. 82.36.26.229 11:18, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) (resisting the temptation to add the rhyme about the cow...)

I also agree try it as it is now with an explanation for the claim. Long live Huddersfield Town, down with the council. 62.252.96.16 29 June 2005 17:56 (UTC)

Would that be the best-performing council in the Yorkshire & Humber region? -- R.carroll 8 July 2005 20:22 (UTC)

62.252.96.16, may I ask why you reverted the article today?

That's a proxy number, so it could be any of many users with the same number. I've just redone the page top layout a different way. Is that more suitable? Richard Harvey 05:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

The current article does not conform to the Wikipedia norm for a multi-section article, which should have a (titleless) introduction section before the contents. Because of the conflict between the panoramic view and the infobox (which in Firfox overwrite each other if left to their own devices) a dummy heading has been added by a previous contributor.

Originally this came before the intro section; I moved it to after the intro section so that section came before the contents, but 86.2.137.29 reverted my changes with the comment 'to preserve page layout' which seems to suggest (s)he is unfamiliar with Wikipedia norms.

I considered re-reverting, but havn't because:

• I don't want to start a reversion war
• I noticed that both versions have the unpleasant consequence of a blank heading in the contents.

I think that the base problem (of the two graphics components over-writing each other) needs resolving, rather than fiddling around with dummy headings. But I havn't worked out how to do this, so I'm adding the {{cleanup}} tag in the hope another editor will have the necessary skills. -- Chris j wood 11:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Population

Population of Huddersfield town according to ONS is 146,234. This figure will of course depend upon definitions. If the bigger claim is inserted we need to know where it comes from. Morwen - Talk 22:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• I have put the breakdown for the Original Huddersfield District Area in so that this may stop people getting mixed up between the Areas of Kirklees, and just the sub district of Huddersfield without the surrounding Villages & Hamlets which make up the town as a whole. Richard Harvey 23:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• • I don't understand how "Original Huddersfield District Area" can be defined as this. Please provide a source for this. In particular, places like Denby Dale constituted seperate urban districts right until 1974 when they were put into Kirklees. It would be valid to talk about the population of the former county borough, but that ain't it. Morwen - Talk 23:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Some notes on this, because I am going to bed soon (I hope)

• We can't quote population figures from random sources. They all have to come from standard sources.
• the population figures at the moment come from two sources
  • ODPM/ONS estimates
  • ONS census 2001
• they are given for three different types of areas
  • local authorities - parishes, districts, counties, or
  • urban sub-areas
  • urban areas
• the thing that is most applicable here is urban sub-area.
• We need a URL to the document you are citing. I tried googling for it at the council's website but couldn't find anything.
• If we are using an "original district area" population for Huddersfield, then we would have to use the same methodology for every other places in England
  • it appears this is an invention of Kirklees council so this is unlikely
    • • so it can be noted, but as a footnote
• but the bottom line is we can't use this as a headline figure just for Huddersfield, but not adjusting any other towns population in accordance
  • and we shouldn't do that even if we could because obviously Denby Dale is not part of the town of Huddersfield, unless town has lost its meaning.
    • it is certainly part of the "Huddersfield area" but this article isn't about that. so as I say before, it can be mentioned as a footnote Morwen - Talk 23:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, [1] gives the population of the former Huddersfield county borough as 121,620. I can't find anything in this section describing as you did. Morwen - Talk 00:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

(Copying following from Richard Harvey's talk page, to make it more generally visible).

I grew up in Huddersfield, and was in my late teens at the time of the '72 reorganisation. My recollection certainly fits with Morwen's research. Prior to 1972, the local authority was Huddersfield County Borough Council; after 1972 it was Kirklees Metropolitan District Council. There was no Huddersfield District intermediate stage.

The HCBC covered quite a large area (someone once told me that it was the largest County Borough by area), but I'm pretty sure it didn't include any of the boroughs or urban districts Morwen listed above. On the other hand, most of the locations Richard listed (eg. Almondbury, Birkby, etc) strike me as locations within the old County Borough. Colne Valley West and the two Holme Valley's made me wonder, but these could well be HCBC wards that were just the bits of the two valleys within the borough, and not to be confused with the urban districts upstream.

The above is 'original research' and hence doesn't belong in Wikipedia itself, but hopefully it helps to clarify/direct your research. -- Chris j wood 12:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

(the above issue has now been sorted out on usertalk, by the way)

According to visionofbritain.org.uk at [2], the area of Huddersfield CB in 1961 was 14,147 acres (57.7 square kilometres). This is not especially large. Leicester's for example was 16,986 (68.7 square kilometres). Morwen - Talk 13:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Infobox template

I've changed this to use the "non-map" template. 86.2.137.125 not only edited this page but also the "infobox with map" template itself to remove the map from the template (and hence every other page that uses the template...). I've also fixed the template...

and is located within the historic borders of the West Riding of Yorkshire.

Why does this need to be included in the opening paragraph? How vital is it? MRSC 10:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Its location within the West Riding is just as important as (and more geographically relevant than) its administration by a metropolitan borough of the West Yorkshire metropolitan county. Either they both belong in the opening paragraph or neither do (as they are both in the infobox). Either way, it certainly doesn't belong under "history" (although any reference to the West Riding County Council does). Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 11:37, 7 July 2006.

Where the ancient and current counties blatantly differ there is cause to use both names, paricularly if a place is historically synonymous with its historic county. However, the West Riding is a precursor of West Yorkshire. It is needless repetition and detailed within the article. I understand they are significantly different to your mind but this is just disrupting Wikipedia to try and prove a point. The point being that ancient counties are as significant today as are current subdivisions. In the case of Huddersfield it is not commonly thougth to be in the West Riding and West Yorkshire. Information regarding it being in the West Riding is completely subordinate to the fact it is in Kirkless and West Yorkshire. MRSC 13:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

"Information regarding it being in the West Riding is completely subordinate to the fact it is in Kirkless and West Yorkshire" is POV, which is what we are supposed to be getting away from! There is no justification, legal or otherwise, to suggest that the administrative areas, known as counties, created in 1974 replaced the ancient and geographic counties: in fact the opposite is true. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 13:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Good to see you have made your position clear. MRSC 13:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand me: I wish to find a workable consensus that both sides can accept rather than contribute to a persistent edit war. Refusing to acknowledge the ongoing existence of the historic counties and acting as though the ceremonial counties replaced them is in no way WP:NPOV. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 14:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm no advocate of the historic counties, but I'm inclined to agree that the current revision is permissable according to all the conventions and consensus, despite it's slightly repetitive prose.

The historic borders are placed second to the modern county system.

I would just reiterate that the opening section of the Oldham article is a really great example of a workable and neutral lead to a simillar sized geographic entry. Perhaps in an effort to both compromise and improve the wording, and stay within the guidelines, Huddersfield could reflect this kind of wording? Jhamez84 20:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

A really great example.... Thats an interesting point Jhamez, especially as you re-wrote the Oldham article, using this Huddersfield article as an example! Quote:-

Hi Aquilina, just a line to let you know I've been working hard on a re-write/revamp for the (currently terrible) Oldham article. As someone I'm sure will be interested, and also very aware of the wider Wiki policies, I'd love for you to take a look at my progress and point me in the right direction. You can find what I've done at User:Jhamez84/sandbox/Oldham. Hope your impressed. Thanks, Jhamez84 13:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC) June 28, 2006 --(text shortened here)-- I've tried moving the article around slightly, using Huddersfield as an example. I think it's okay now.... I'm not a fan of the whole infobox thing, and prefer a picture in that spot... but consensus and all...(!)... Thanks again, Jhamez84 22:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It shows how one good article can help improve another. So tell me:- Who's copying who? Also note the sun shines on Huddersfield, more than on Oldham :-). Richard Harvey 10:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Erm.... I did rewrite the Oldham article, and adimit this freely.... but it is still a good example of a workable consensus... even if I say so myself. It has also received a huge level of praise from the wider editing community and is within the guidelines set by Wikipedia.

Also, I would suggest you re-read the comments I've left about the Oldham article.... I was discussing the location of a large picture, and where to place it on the article.... I used Huddersfield as an example for this, and this is actually what you've quoted me on - nothing to do with the lead section, which is the topic for discussion here.

I'm afraid the above comment doesn't help much in this instance. I was merely raising a point that if there is a dispute, it would be a possibility to look at other similar articles were a consensus has been met. Jhamez84 12:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Especially notable

Notable is POV, but especially so - give it a rest folks! ;) WP:NPOV. If you have trouble keeping the list size down then prehaps consider adding references to each - to sources where they are considered notable. Also, the excessive wikilinking only confuses the list (in the case MoS:DP make sense) - it's better off without. Afterall the articles themself will have the links... /wangi 20:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed 'former' before Prime Minister for Harold Wilson, for consistency. We don't say 'Former Test Crcketer' by Wilfred Rhodes, for example. BlueValour 20:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Former replaced to denote he is not the current Prime Minister as the edit now indicates. Richard Harvey 20:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I have replaced this with the dates he was PM... Got to be careful using VP when an edit's not vandalism! /wangi 21:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Good compromise. Richard Harvey was wrong to revert using VP and without addressing my consistency point. BlueValour 21:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed! Good compromise, No vandalism was assumed, my apologies if you thought I it was. You will both note I responded on your individual talk pages. However as I note I have been working on this PC for close on 14 hours I am now off for my lunch, dinner and supper combined. Keep up the good work. Richard Harvey 21:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Haddersfield

A similarly spelt and pronounced town has no relevance to Huddersfield, as two editors concur. People in Hudersfield have their origins from many parts of the world; which is no basis for adding links to those countries. If an editor can produce an argument that has majority support here (or can independently source a connection between the two towns) fine, until then it should stay out. BlueValour 17:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Two editors Concur? one editor who is not registered therefore could also be yourself, also only two editors agreeing on an edit is hardly a convincing argument for a Majority decision. There may be many people in huddersfield who originate from a diverse amount of places, but how many come froma place that has a similar name. If there are people in Huddersfield who come from Haddersfield Jamaica then the link has relevance to the article, it does not detract from the article but provides a further reference source, which is the purpose of Wikipedia. Accordingly I will revert your removal and continue to replace the information which has been on the article for some considerable time, with no other problem. I feel we must agree to disagree, and so the information should stay as it was. Richard Harvey 18:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Just as a side thought! Many other editors have read and ammended this page, before you deleted the link, without removing it. You should therefore assume that they thought the link was relevant, which in itself is a majority decision that it should remain! Richard Harvey 18:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not hide behind anon IPs. When material is disputed then it should remain out until talk page concensus has been obtained. You said I will revert your removal and continue to replace the information. This is unecessary, confrontational language that I will not join in with. Wikipedia is edited by concensus and compromise. Therefore, as a compromise, I will produce a DAB link that will keep the reference in the article against my better judgement. If there are people in Huddersfield who come from Haddersfield Jamaica then the link has relevance to the article - this needs sourcing, a further reason to delete. BlueValour 21:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Since no objections have been raised, I have gone ahead with replacing the 'See also' with a DAB. This meets the point about linking to Haddersfield, Jamaica whilst doing so in a more appropriate form In all cases the map link is redundant - if anyone wants to know more about Haddersfield, including its location, they would go to that article. BlueValour 01:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It is very difficult for an objection to be raised to something you do late at night or in the early hours of the morning and within a matter of hours of your previous edit/ comment being made, whilst others are asleep and unable to reply. I had already said what I felt and there was no reason to keep repeating it. I noted your comment about consensus, and compromise, however in view of your editing I have the impression that you mean a consensus of one, ie your own. When something is not agreed upon then it should remain as it is, to maintain the status quo, not arbitrarily taken out 'until agreed upon' which is what you wanted to do in the first place, thereby obtaining your edit by default. I state again that the reference is relevant to the article, it does not detract, or degrade from the article in anyway and so should remain. Trying to get The perfect article is not easy, but this reference falls within the perfect article guidelines to branch out and add wikilinks and external information and is completely neutral and unbiased. Please note that I did not insert the original information, so have no personal bias towards it, but I do feel that it is relevant and should stay. Please note that my prior comment was not written to be confrontational, that is just how you interpreted it, judging my the numerous edits to your post that you made! It was a simple statement that I felt the item should stay so I would keep adding it back, to maintain the status quo, in the same way that you felt it was not and kept deleting it. I think you have done some very good edits, both on this and other articles, but in this instance I feel that you are plainly wrong. Obviously we have a dispute over this so if you feel that you cannot accept the status quo you may wish to put this up to the Association of Members' Advocates as a dispute to be resolved. But until that is done and a decision is obtained then please refrain from deleting the reference. Richard Harvey 09:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I notice that you are indulging in personal attacks again; this just illustrates the weakness of your case. I will stick to the issues: External Links do not go under 'See also'; they go under 'External links'. Yes there is a cute similarity between the names, a DAB reference at the top of the article is the way to clarify this. BlueValour 15:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Re the map link

I removed it stating: "- a map of Haddersfield Jamaca is not relevant to this article" which lead to the following on my talk page:

I feel that you will find a location map to Haddersfield is relevant to the article as you will note on the article there is a link between the towns, as per the talk page. Richard Harvey 22:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No, a link to a map to Huddersfield is relevant on Huddersfield, a link of a map to Haddersfield on Haddersfield. The articles are sufficiently linked and the connection is already mentioned in the article. The link is not relevant, WP:EL. Thanks/wangi 22:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I plan on removing the link again tomorrow, since it is clearly not relevant to this article. Thanks/wangi 22:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• The link is plainly superfluous since it is on the Haddersfield site which is where people will look if they want information on Haddersfield! BlueValour 23:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed! If you check the histories of the article and talk pages you will note I edited the link out some 18 minutes before your message was posted, as per my post on wangi's Talk page. Richard Harvey 09:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:People from Huddersfield/Notable people born in Huddersfield

There is a new category People from Huddersfield that is now open for business! This is for people born or educated in Huddersfield (the last is to deal with those unfortunates whose parents couldn't make it back to Huddersfield before they were born!). Because categories have no set size (they can be subdivided if they get too large) it deals with the problem of lists of notable people getting too large. They are also much easier to maintain. So, roll up, roll up and add some names in the format [[Category:People from Huddersfield|Wilson, Harold]] so that they indexed by surname. BlueValour 00:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add people to this list who do not already have a Wikipedia article. If appropriate the WP article should be created first. External links are not suitable for this list - they should be added to the person's WP article. BlueValour 23:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this section is defining the boundaries. Adding everyone born in Huddersfield, as has recently been done, makes this list unweildy. OTOH if we try to be more exclusive how do we define 'exceptionally notable'? Since the formation of Category:People from Huddersfield this section is, in any case, arguably redundant. I am proposing that we resolve the problem by replacing the list of names with a reference to the Category. BlueValour 22:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I think you are right. The additions to the list today show that this section is going to become unweildy. and a category list of names is a good way of dealing with it. However I do feel some names are worth having on the main article. The town has benefitted by some of those names, such as Harold Wilson, Anita Lonsborough, David Brown and Roy Castle. Perhaps it would be suitable to keep a small list like these or those that have been honoured with the Freedom of the town or the previous Borough. NB: perhaps this post section could be merged with your previous post above, regarding the new category. Richard Harvey 00:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been having any luck tracking down Freedoms but an alternative suggestion is to list those with honours from the Queeen - Peerages, MBEs and the like. BlueValour 01:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

That seems like a workable solution, it would denote those who are particularly notable, Though I think we may need to limit how far back in history we go regarding peerages and such. Huddersfield has had more than most are aware of. I know the Dukes received the freedom of the town but am unsure if any individuals have done so, but that can be checked via the town hall, which I will do today. I will also see about putting an image of the Dukes freedom scroll on the article page. Richard Harvey 10:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

References

These should be in the form <ref>...</ref>. A mixture of this type of reference, and inline references looks awful. BlueValour 23:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Notable people born in Huddersfield musings, and observations on wiki style and purpose

using red links to stiumlate input

My own take on this is that I may know a bit here and there about people but the wiki project is in its early days at the moment and there's a case to be made that those of us who are taking an interest at this point should be encouraging input from all over. As such is it not perhaps an idea to consider turning a blind eye to red links for the moment and maybe add a box at the bottom people of this requesting people who know enough to add half a screenful or so to knock up an outline, bearing in mind that GCSE, AS and A Level students will be looking for projects to do in the next few months?

I can list half a dozen or so people I consider should be there but I don't know enough about to do aught other than start off a stub. The only way I can verify they were born in Huddersfield is by requesting copies of their birth certificates from the Registrar which has the pitfalls of being firstly original research, secondly unneccessry expenditure and thirdly somewhat intrusive into their privacy.

Exempla gratis - John Whitaker

Let's take John Whitaker as an example. There's about as minimal a stub on him as it's possible to have but nobody's taken him off the list, unlike every other one of the dozen or so names I've added over the last week. The reason for this that springs instantly to mind is that it's probably because the link shows up blue, so that makes it all right. But (grin), surely, that's not the point!

stimulating contributions in practice

I'm sure for example that someone who's attended every performance of the local Youth Orchestras may well have a concert programme in a box their attic, filing cabinet or shed which mentions Katrina Rafferty's acceptance into the RCM, her successful graduation therefrom and her subsequent appointment as Lead Violin with the Hong Kong Phil..

Those unfamiliar with Orchestral protocol may wish to note that what this translates to is captaining a premiership squad as the Orchestra is both fully professional and internationally recognised. The lead violin is not just a soloist but the instrument that every other tunable instrument in the ensemble, including the percussion, takes as their reference point and, when one becomes aware of the role of the Pythagorean comma in instrumental temperament, as per Bach's famous Baroque era suite for the Clavichord entitled The Well-Tempered Clavichord, the Even tempered Clavichord and The bad tempered clavichord, how this interacts with the various harmonic phenomena over the key changes in a musical progression and how this affects the choice of pieces an orchestra can do justice to in a particular intonation on a given string.

As such I believe it represents enough of an achievement that she should be up there whether there's an entry on her or not, FWIW.

As my information comes from having been at the same school at the same time, knowing her parents were both music teachers in Huddersfield, and the bit on theory from a Maths journal I don't consider I'm the best person to compile an entry on her but, not only that, I also consider the best way to coax enough information out of casual browsers to get sufficient information up there is to have a clearly unresolved link that will suck someone in to star one off because they do genuinely know enough and can verfiy it! and I don't see how we should achieve this by adopting an editorial policy of unthinkingly deleting red links in the notable people section because it looks messy.

Similarly I know from old schoolmates that Kev Smith is a ex-World Champion driver who'd fit nicely into either a dedicated wiki entry or into the area entry for Reinwood and that Howard Willerton has played cricket for Yorkshire. Jamie Whitham is worth an entry too but I'm not authoritative enough on any of them to write a biog chunk.

There's every chance, for example, that a red link associated with either Jamie Whitham or Kev Smith would stimulate a contribution from a non-native speaking motorsports fan based overseas who's followed this that or the other sector for the last two decades and is browsing the english wiki to brush up on their English, so the editing process that follows would be genuinely instructive to them.

a test of my assertions

OK, Robert Whitaker, John's son, is a racehorse trainer but he doesn't have an entry. So I propose we add him at the bottom of the list, and allow the link to be red, and see whether his or John's entry becomes an article worth reading first.

policy to style

Yesh, I accept I can type as fast as I can think and speak and that many other people can't do this but my feeling is that the official wiki counsel regarding the danger of computer-mediated communication turning into a petty war of attrition should over-ride the constraints of the letter of the style and reference guide whilst the town's entry is at this comparatively immature stage. Yet my own initial reaction to the [auctor emptor] of pasting a chunk of authoritative style text on the discussion page with very little qualifying discussion would be off-putting to those with little experience of writing for wider audiences and, indeed, left me wondering whether I might not just duck off out of the way rather than bother contributing.

As a skilled typist I'm happy to work up a set of more informal guidance as and when required and paste copied here on the discussion page so that less skilled keyers, who nonetheless mean well and know what they're on about, can tailor them. I say this with an appreciation that the average schoolkid, sports fan, oral historian, pensioner, or music afficionado living in Huddersfield is unlikely to have any journalistic or editorial experience past perhaps making suggestions regarding club minutes or workplace procedures. Yet the purposes of the project are better served, it seems to me, by encouraging people who can bring a wealth of information from having followed whatever it is they're writing about over the years to contribute and respectfully explaining what decisions have been made concerning their efforts and why in an informal manner than sticking up a terse authoritative excerpt from the guide with an implicit "like it or lump it".

reference sources - Examiner

Again I consider that somewhere or other Wilf Lunn needs a citation, and definitely should be linked from the Huddersfield page as a) he lives here and b) he's a popular colourful figure.

Again I was a little annoyed that my observation his birthplace needed verification was simply removed without comment, particularly as I'm right! However, when one bears in the mind that for the whole of this millenium so far the local rag has referred in print to a venue that never existed, namely Ivanhoe's, I don't consider they are sufficiently authoritative that their word should be taken.

If anyone's likely to be in a bookshop over the weekend perhaps they could get the title and ISBN of Wilf's autobiography so it can be pasted in on the Brighouse entry. I know the Examiner are likely to have got that bit right as Wilf will've prepared the excerpted text himself but, at the end of the day the venue on Manchester Rd was only ever licensed for sale of alcohol and entertainments as Kazzhoe's. I don't have photographic evidence but this seems to be an example of the "generally held" consensus that runs contrary to the whole wiki ethic. I know it's not mentioned yet, but on the basis of this I think we need to make a point of verifying with referencable published sources.

If the Examiner wish to get things wrong, well hey, that's up to them, they're insured against it. But do bear in mind an awful lot more people read wiki than read our local newsround.

list of people to add

I suggest that, dependent on how the Whitaker litmus works out, we consider sticking the following people on the list in time for the midwinter break when browsing is going to go sky high.

Trevor Cherry - didn't he start off his career playing at leeds Rd as well as living here whilst at Leeds, and was this because he was born here? I'm not a soccerdemic...

Billy Currie, violinist with Ultravox. A Look-In biography I remember from the '80s stated he is from Huddersfield, implying he was born here rather than simply studied here.

Angela Dick, first black female ordained minister in the Church of England. Again I know Angela from growing up here but haven't seen or heard much in years other than she was curate of Warley, in Halifax, last time I heard. She was born here and studied at Huddersfield New College before gaining a degree in the States. I'm sure that Old Bradleians of the town are better disposed to work up a biography on her than I am but it's an achievement worth noting as the CofE is, of cource, a worldwide organistion.

Michael Knighton, chairman, Manchester United FC 1988-92 and proprietor, The Huddersfield Grammar School, Luck Lane. Again, I can't verify he was born here at this point so does anyone know one way or another?

Richard Lunn - who has worked on League of Gentlemen, Spaced, Comic Strip presents &c. Wilf's Biographical stub names Richard as his son but the guy I was briefly at college with who was his son certainly wasn't called Richard. Richard Lunn does work in the contemporary film and televisual arts sector and it's entirely plausible he's adopted a pseudonym for privacy or whatever other reason.

"Nelson" - don't have a full name, bassist with New Model Army. He's somet' to do with hudd's but whether he originated here is another matter. Anyone know?

Alice Roberts, osteoarchaeologist with Time Team and tenured lecturer somewhere down south. the Examiner mentioned her as being from Huddersfield when she got the TV gig, does anyone have aught more solid to go on?

Kev Smith, British Stock Car Association (BriSCA) Formula 1 World Champion 1990-1994. Despite being the British SCA it attracts competitors from the international arena. I've a feeling the Formula One moniker puts it under the auspices of the FIA, can anyone verify this?

William "Willie" Watson, yorkshire and England cricketer, Town footballer and poultry farmer based at Laund hill. Anyone got any dates for his squad inclusions? Is the anecdotal account I've had correct or are he and Wilfrid Rhodes one and the same?

James (Jamie) Whitham, Ex world and British superbikes competitor, rival to Carl Fogarty throughout the nineties who gamely continued to compete whilst battling cancer. He retired due to lacking the edge he once had after slipping down the rankings probably as a side effect of the chemo. He now owns a motorsport team based in Meltham Mills near where he continues to live. So far as I know he's a born & bred.

Frank Worthington, professional footballer. So far as I know he's from round these parts. As with anything, I'll defer to anyone who genuinely knows better.

Wasn't the guy who ran the funeral parlour at Mount also from huddersfield originally? he was in the 66 World Cup squad, that much I do know, and I thought he retired back here.

early days!

Yeah, I can't help comparing the entry for huddersfield with those for sciences, E.g. physics and linguistics, and those for various musical instruments, and suchlike and observing that whilst there's an awful lot that can be said about the town it'll get said a lot quicker if allow for a lot of red links that encourage people to add, that acknowledge we don't know, that say "Hey, we need info on this person, or that topic, do you know enough to add some?"

As it's already mid-October at time of writing and New Year is about 10 weeks off and all kinds of people get together and swap stories and recollections and have this or that book kicking around, I'm going to stick my neck out and say that what appears to be a censorious approach to the letter of the wiki regulations is likely only to hamper the town's entryies' progress from embryonic to mature.

With the amount of substances likely to be consumed in the town over the winter break I don't see how it's worth being too authoritarian and I suggest that, actually, we work towards getting as many gaps as we can think of up there for people to think "yeah, I know somet' about that" rather than relying on them to think "oooh, nobody's put that Wille Watson who farmed chickens in yet" as I'd not heard of him.

The time to really focus on getting it into shape is mid-January to the end of March, strategically, I reckon, as there's likely only going to to be so many irreverent, but not necessarily malicious, attempts to contribute during the 12 days or so of the feast.

As an example, it's 3 weeks to Bonfire Night and nobody's yet put aught up about Standard Fireworks role in the industry of the town, yet they were and are an International firm. I reckon rasther than rushing to write something, if we start off a red link this weekend we'll have the basis of an article before Hallowe'en. It's just a shame there isn't an equivalent company based in any other town that we can monitor as a control variable to see whether the theory works...

Thandi Bros. - taste

Quite frankly the Examiner's vitriolic, parochial and condescending coverage of the Castle Hill fiasco, as mirrored in the wiki entry, does them and the town no credit. not in the light of their permissive don't-ask-don't-tell conspicuous silence on the fact that the country's awash with cocaine like never before--except when the Old Bill have a press release to print, because if they did they'd be hypocrites.

Perhaps being unusual in that I have lived elsewhere, the old pub at Castle Hill is hardly of architectural significance compared with some of the beautiful old frontages that have, "oops, fell down in a high wind, honest guv" in other areas of the country--which wouldn't be so bad if new towering office blocks and car parks hadn't gone up quite so soon after!

Whether the Thandis were silly and misguided, bit off more than they could chew, or were trying to pull a bit of a fast one, in my opinion the pub' wasn't that outstanding in the first place and the whole furore is well out of propotion. As such I would be happier if someone could perhaps edit the article in question bearing in mind that at first sight I read it is as nasty, petty and unjustifiably uncalled for in a project such as a wiki.

If they'd done it to the Strines inn out off the A616 then maybe, but in all honesty it reads like the mindless unthinking repetition of drunken rhetoric better suited to the public bar of a local at closing time than to a collaborative factual resource. I'm sure I don't need to refer people to the wiki guide on personal attacks and basing articles on anecdotal collquial opinion. I just don't see how we're doing the Town, or Yokshire, any favours by sniping like we are. If a bit rough around the edges Yorkshire fowk reputedly pride themselves on being fair. I don't think we are being in the grand scheme of things.

They're small fry are the Thandis, so I advocate we not blow a storm in a teacup out of proportion, bearing in mind we're writing for a truly international audience.

And talking about cocaine, anyone know where I can reliably score some weed that hasn't been flushed through with liquid crack during the curing process? My connections do try but are dependent to a point on what their connections can deliver.

verifying

If I was working in the town centre I'd be quite happy to check this and that in my lunch hour. At the minute I'm not. However, I am quite willing to give over a day or two at a time when there's a substantial list of facts that have been marked up as requiring verification. when there's enough to justify the effort in other words. We aren't going to get one a list like this together if people keep deleting entirely appropriate requests for verification on the basis of "because I say so and, besides, it looks scruffy".

However, my interpretation of the wiki style guide so far suggests that the contributors who've made unverified assertions should be encourgaed to do the leg work in the first instance, rather than it automatically being an editorial duty in the time-honoured committe job mould.

I say give them a month, and refer people back to my earlier comments about being willing to work on a set of friendly informal requests for further input from new contributors which can then be kept here and quickly tailored on an ad hoc basis.

a note on my style

I know whatever I write is likely to be edited, reviewed, moved, cut, pasted, deleted, and otherwise everyone else's property. I don't mind this. I know from working on "dryer" documents in-house, such as Quality procedures, that I tend to overcompensate once way or the other during the drafting process, either becoming tediously precious or a bit flip.

My experience in topics of more general interest is that, of what I put up, about two thirds tends to end up incorporated here or there in smaller chunks. So I make no apologies for for encouraging other editors to lighten up and smile a wry grin in keeping with the ranges of idiomatic humour prevalent in the area. Don't get offended guys, depending what goes up over Christmas you may find out I genuinely have got room to talk.

Anybody revision tracking please note that I did sign in but spent so long knocking this up that wiki had logged me out. That wasn't vandalism. I cut, then pasted what I wrote originally as is after logging back in.

Graphitus 16:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Notable people - proposed standard for stubs to allowing interim list inclusion

Introduction

As outlined above, in and amongst, I see the insistence on notable people having an entry as counter productive in terms of encouraging input from people who know enough to comment. I know of people who should, IMO clearly, be on there, but am not in any position to write anything approaching a real or complete entry. And I see the way to get entries written is some kind of flaggin up convention rather than non-inclusion on the list. So I have a proposal to work round it using stubs which, in strict wiki style terms, are not "entries" per se.

Why keep entries in red?

Allowing for entries to be un/linked in red draws the eye of potential contributors yet, after some consideration, I can see that without a basic template for entry the markup involved may prove a bit daunting for the casual, technophobic, but nonetheless potentially knowledgable to expert level, browser who could be encouraged to contribute.

As such I suggest we refer in the first instance to empty entries by their wiki term of stubs, rather than rely on people chasing the links to an empty article. Many people are modest and unassuming but won't necessarily follow every link. However, if they know something about a topic and there's noaught else up on it at all, they may well do.

• Robert Whitaker Race horse trainer. Can you contribute to Robert's entry? If so we've set up a stub for you. Follow this link to Robert Whitaker's stub to get the ball rolling.

Actions from here

I'll set up a range of stubs (by slurping them up from elsewhere) for the people I've proposed adding to the list over the course of this evening then post the text for the list entries here when they're done and whoever feels motivated to drop them into the live page when some consensus has been reached over if it's a worthwhile approach or I'm barking up the wrong tree--which I acknowledge I may well be.

Graphitus 18:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Stubs - not suitable

Overview

A quick look at the various stub types clarifies that they have a specific purpose and there ain't a category for biographical information.

Stet back to a hack around idea

I was going suggest a hack around taking the form of leaving enntry unfilled in order to attract attention, so that potential contributors are aware there is a "slot" so to speak and that there isn't aught up there. As such I came up with an idea which I shall float now.

Hack-around - interim entries

I am a bit new and, in some ways a bit of a reluctant Wikipedian having read stuff in the media and concluded it sounds a bit too much like work, i.e. like a PSV pilot's package tour rather than being beyond my competence. However I detect no discussion on the mertis of using unresolved links to atrract attention from people who can contribute certainly more than I can.

As such, I suggest not setting up entries where there isn't one already, but rather setting up a slightly differently named entry as, say, &sqbr;&sqbr;John Whitaker's interim entry&sqbr;&sqbr and making an explicit request for people to contribute there from whence, when there's enough to condense into a genuine entry we rename it and let it adopt a blue link.

I can just see people not following blue links in practice on the basis they're modest and unassuming and there are more interesting links for them to follow when, if it was made clear to them explicitly that info on a notable person was wanted, they'd put some up there which can then be edited into wiki-compliant style at editors' leisure.

I'm currently reluctant to make any changes to the main page as those I have made tend to have been deleted and my verification required tags similarly junked wihtout anybody liftin a finger to do aught but clik on a muse button. hence let me know if this'll work and, if not, why not.

Graphitus 20:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Graphitus

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you but at the moment my Wikipedia time is being taken up with articles associated with FIDE World Chess Championship 2006, Huddersfield Town F.C. and Tony Blair! However I wanted to reply initially on a couple of points.

Stub types

There are plenty of bio stubs - go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types and you will find that you can stub by occupation, nationality and often both.

Notable people

The list of notable people is a problem. It is already long enough so if we were to expand it to everyone who has a WP article, never mind red-link, it would become unmanageable. Plainly, therefore, if folks with articles are not on, adding red-linked names simply would be unacceptable.

There is, however, a solution:

• Create a stub article (making sure you assert notability to stop it getting deleted straight away (see WP:BIO for guidance));
• Add the person to Category:People from Huddersfield.

Categories are miles better than lists both for completeness and ease of maintenance. Indeed, now that we have a suitable category the purpose of the list perhaps should be re-examined.

Wilf Lunn

The deletion of the verification of Wilf Lunn was a misunderstanding - it was not clear to me, initially, that it was his birthplace that you were querying - this is the advantage of using the edit summary or talk page to explain intentions. BlueValour 22:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Brief follow-up

Not a problem Blue Valour, I do understand your perspective. Now I know where things are at I'm quite happy to worry away at the misunderstandings here rather than on the main page.

The upshot of it all is that I was went away rather miffed at myself for doing nothing more outstanding than contributing the longest prima-donna enfant-terrible rant this page has seen yet and figured the best way to proceed was to just go do something entirely different for a while until I could return with a more objective eye. This should be enjoyable, if not fun as such, for everyone involved.

As such I've been immersed myself in preparing the Chaucerian epic Troilus and Criseyde for release to the public domain as an eBook (half way through book 3 so far and already behind schedule), one of a long list of texts from the old ftp archive network that were likely to disappear into a virtual void, as well sourcing copyright-expired music score from real books for the same treatment.

I do take the view that it's unreasonable to expect instant responses even in a wiki-wiki-quickly environment and am encouraged yours is balanced and reasonable.