Talk:List of King George V Playing Fields in the United Kingdom

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comments

Please enter alphabetically

This page will grow, if all goes well. I suspect we will need to split it into counties and regions. So long as the table entries are in COUNTY order, this will be a simple, though not trivial task Fiddle Faddle 09:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In preparation for what is anticipated to be a table per UK county, I have created what I hope will be the definitive table (!). OK, it can always be improved. But I am using it as the model. As soon as we get a table for another county I will create a Surrey (the original page) page, and one for the new county and turn this main list page into an index to the counties. After that I hope that fellow editors will see the model and continue at will.

HTML was used in the table simply because I am better at it than the wiki pipe syntax. I'm sure everyone can use both when they see something set up.

I'm also hoping to interest the National Playing Fields Association in adding some entries.

Fiddle Faddle 21:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Devon and Surrey now exist. So, "all" we need is more counties and more fields. The easiest way to start a new county page is to copy an existing county page and paste it into the new one, editing the existing data. Fiddle Faddle 22:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting there. All counties added for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. A few for Scotland, though most of then are redlinks so far. This is very much "work in progress" at present, but a decent start has been made. Pure research is hard because google etc does nto always list things one expects. So local knowledge will be useful.

I've also interested the NPFA in at least providing data, and hope that they may also join in and provide so page content Fiddle Faddle 14:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maps, etc.

This reminds me of some nerd who has listed all 219 Coal Tax Posts!

I strongly recommend the use of wiki markup for the tables. Mind you I spent an hour unsuccessfully trying to do the headers with their rowspans and colspans in wiki markup.

I have given you {{KGVlist}} as a suggestion for the map links. Personally, I tend to hide Grid Refs - geo nerds will find them easily enough in the URLs, the world's people aren't interested anyway. Scale is included as a parameter so that the Multimap link can go to the Barts map for London and to Landranger for outside London. Note that the Multimap link don't work with "four figure" grid refs, eg. TQ3437 as here: m w - but oscoor is perfectly happy with them (of course). -- RHaworth 06:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Different kind of nerd :) KGV fields are a memorial and have a current local significance :) Wikimarkup for tables drives me totally barking mad, esp the 'th' tage converted to wikimarkup. I take a different view with grid refs. I find them non nerdish but vital to identify a place :) Tks for KGVlist. Fiddle Faddle 08:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that grid refs are vital, I just question whether they should be displayed or just used in links. Actually displayed is better - people might want to print the list and use it in field (in both senses!) studies.

if you experiment a bit more with KGVlist, but we carry on using it, you may find the "best of all possible worlds". I can always reformat the table columns a little to suit displayed grids. But note that I have a template request in to make the whole thing simpler, so "sooner rather than later" would make sense for a "field list" Fiddle Faddle 17:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creating {{kgvf-row}} was not exactly rocket science. It has negligible advantage for convenience of creating entries but it might be very useful if there was to be a change to the table format.

I strongly recommend developing the list as one table in one article (but arranged by county) for the time being. It will make things much easier if global changes are required. When you start to get the edit warning "this article is 32 Kbytes long", then will be the time to split it. -- RHaworth 17:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the page is "template created" rather than wholly manual input there is not any advantage in doing it as a whole page that must be split. It actually created more effort overall to split, and correct any links. I'd seriously rather do this as split pages from the inception.

Using templates in this was will mean any changes to the template cascade into all the pages depending upon the template

Fiddle Faddle 17:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

piccies

Heres's your first image - 470 more to go!

Geograph has a few more - geograph search. Wikipedians might object to a gallery of 471 images but the Commons will be happy with it. Or perhaps upload the images to geograph and add a column "link to geograph image" - I ain't done a template for it but it is easy: Staines Park. -- RHaworth 11:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

470 more to go. Lordy! Great start, though! It can always have a column added to the template for the page that you created and the page is based around. As you know I have no idea how to do templates, but I know you do. Fancy taking a crack at it? I have created several list pages today, but it is not going to be a full time effort for me. I'm hoping other editors will run with it too. Fiddle Faddle 19:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:OS grid key Britain.gif

Welsh county names

Where there are alternatives, such as "Pembrokeshire" and "Sir Benfro" I am simply creating the English variant, since that would be expected by the majority of readers. Fiddle Faddle 18:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, there is no objection whatsoever to creating the alternatives and redirecting one to the other. It's a matter of hours in the day while this is just one editor. Fiddle Faddle 07:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland

Where on earth did you find a grid ref of NW489300? OSGB square NW is only intended to be used for the northwest corner of The Rhins. That square happens to cover Belfast but for Northern Ireland, you should be using OSI coords which put Belfast in square J. I have been promising myself for over a year to extend the resource that {{oscoor}} calls to cover Ireland but I still have not got a round tuit.

I have put a couple of links in List of King George V Playing Fields (Down) (but not Antrim) which should work for anywhere in Ireland.

Getamap will accept OSI coords thus but its largest scale is pathetic. I am still looking for a way of getting OSI coords from an online map. -- RHaworth 12:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

passes you the round tuit. I got the co-ords from a whole slew of things including Google Earth, then inputting the refs into I think Multimap that had a co-ord converter Fiddle Faddle 13:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

https://maps.osni.gov.uk/ has an irritating sign up procedure. It accepts false name and address details and asks for but does not demand credit card details! Once you get past the log in, find your way to the "Map Console" - that has some incredibly detailed maps. As you move the cursor over the map, the Grid Ref appears in the browser's status bar. -- RHaworth 13:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks

This is part of a major work in progress. The article will have redlinks for a month or two, maybe longer. While redlinks in this quantity are normally deprecated, leaving them red in this manner and watching them gradually disappear also shows how the work in progress is getting on.

It would be appreciated if editors would use one simple method for removing redlinks on this page: Please create the article

For overall progress it is worth visiting Category:King George's Field and checking out the number of pages there. In the early stages the ration is approximately 1.2:1 of "place pages:list pages. As time progresses, especially since the NPFA have expressed willingness to be involved in this, that ratio will move to a far more "field based" ratio. At the end the counties without KGVFs will be removed from the article on this page, when it will become a definitive list.

Fiddle Faddle 09:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List

Has a list of the fields been located or are we still hunting them piecemeal? If the latter, this search of RFU pages will yield a few. -- RHaworth 01:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The NPFA has just supplied a list. I have a large excel spreadsheet which is going to make a huge difference. Still a labour of love, but hugely helpful. Only had time this week to add the extra details from the NPFA to the background pages, but you'll see they are enormously expanded. Hunting piecemeal is hugely hard, it seems. That only delivered about 40 fields. Now I have all :) Fiddle Faddle 06:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of King George V Playing Fields in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061027192847/http://www.belfastcity.gov.uk/parksandopenspaces/sportsdetails.asp?id=41 to http://www.belfastcity.gov.uk/parksandopenspaces/sportsdetails.asp?id=41

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]