User talk:Adam37

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archived talk is separate

I welcome any message of thanks, point of view or critique.

Subdue that Peacock[edit]

My key How to write about UK settlements task!

Avoid Peacock Terms

Subdue Peacock terms into more verifiable and encyclopedic statements. As concerns UK Places see WP:UKTOWNS and WP:UKVILLAGES weasel terms and unverifiable and unpublished peacock phrases often need to be rephrased or erased. Their publishers must be notified which typically involves identifying non-encyclopaedic terms such as "lively community", "beautiful", "great", "leading school", "thriving", "affluent", "within easy reach of" and "blighted by/ shabby/ run-down" unless strong scholarly (e.g. non-tourism focussed book) or governmental sources can be found to verify such content and it is worthy of a Global Encyclopedia article. Essentially many articles otherwise turn into a beauty contest. See my user page.

Disambiguation link notification for August 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tozeur Governorate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Matmata (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Town or village?[edit]

Can you help here? Swanscombe is called "a small town", but it categorised as "Villages in Kent". What do you think it is, officially? --Finn Bjørklid (talk) 13:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Thankfully that is consensus like in wikipedia and democracy! However in 1981 Swanscombe Parish Council was upgraded to Swanscombe and Greenhithe Town Council, and that stamp of change means the answer is town. In England local government and central government will not use the word town unless they are sure the central character is urban, as it upsets all those with green gardens/allotments and a sense of know-everyone villagey-ness which is at the heart of England. In every town therefore you will find pleasant parts where people say they feel like and even live in a village, even in London and in Birmingham for example, less so in the most industrial cities but on their outskirts that is true too!- Adam37 Talk 23:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Adam37. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Charlwood Clarification[edit]

The entire sentence doesn't make sense. It's nothing to do with the moat.CalzGuy (talk) 18:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Surrey[edit]

I am available to be asked regarding advice on WikiProject banner templates, as I have much experience in this area. Regarding this revert: it doesn't work, that's the point - your edits have brought in several problems by removing some essential parameters, and altering other parameter values in such a way that portions of the template no longer behave as they should - for example, the categorisation by importance is compromised. The sandbox is at Template:WikiProject Surrey/sandbox, please use that for making experimental changes. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I am at a loss, after hours of not quite fruitful study of Template:WPBannerMeta I cannot get that minor imperfection ironed out. To embellish it too much I believe I was going by a bad route from the outset of trying to use parts of the Military History bespoke template. Please could someone just enable the template I have prepared and I will set about one-by-one assessing and re-assessing the articles labouriously which is my intention. I do not like to be compromised by just an issue of auto-categorisation (by importance).- Adam37 Talk 19:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
If I added a second HOOK which is unnecessary then just remove it, and any other fields, even task forces which I see under WP:TASKFORCES might re-invigorate the project and inform people which part of the county someone is from or something is really to do with. The first HOOK is a major step forward as provides for rigorous B-class assessment by everyone.- Adam37 Talk 19:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I suggest that we start with the Template:WikiProject Surrey/sandbox, which I have set up to be identical to the main template as it was yesterday. We can add one new feature at a time to the sandbox, and make sure each is correct before the next is added to the sandbox. In the meantime, I suggest that we restore the live template to yesterday's version - remember that every time it is altered, no matter how small the change, every page transcluding it (there are 1580 of these) gets placed in the job queue for re-parsing.
Once all of the changes to the sandbox version are finished, we can than copy that live.
It would help a lot if I knew what you were trying to achieve. I'm clear on one thing: that you want to add five taskforces, one each for: the Runnymede, Spelthorne and Elmbridge task force; the Mole Valley & Epsom & Ewell task force; the Surrey Heath & Woking task force; the Reigate & Banstead and Tandridge task force; and the Guildford and Waverley task force. We can add these like this.
So, what else is needed? For example, do you wish each taskforce to have its own importance rating, independent of the general WikiProject Surrey importance rating?
What else do you want to add? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Nothing else. I don't see the need to add anything else, thank you for fixing the coding, very much.- Adam37 Talk 17:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]


  1. ^ This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. ^ Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

Members of Parliament lists[edit]

I have noticed that you have introduced a new style of presentation of the list contained in Barking (UK Parliament constituency). I think if this sort of change is going to be acceptable to the list in this article then it should occur across all UK Parliament constituency articles, both current and historic. If this is your intention, it may be worth you opening a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom‎. Should your new style of presentation be deemed by others as an improvement, you will still have much work ahead of you. I don't think you will get many other editors keen to make this change to all the other articles.Graemp (talk) 08:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)@Graemp: I don't think the new format is an improvement, and have raised the subject at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics_of_the_United_Kingdom#MP_lists_in_constituency_articles_-_format_change. Adam37, please don't reformat any other MP lists until there has been a discussion. I would have reverted as part of "Bold, Revert, Discuss", but it was complicated because you'd done other changes in the same edit (no problem with that, I tend to do the same thing). Thanks. PamD 09:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I see now that you've reformatted many lists already, but please now stop until there is discussion. Thanks. PamD 09:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I haven't introduced a new style, I saw it in Battersea first and considered it roundly, objectively a great improvement. We can discuss until the cows come home and I don't necessarily discount that it becomes deprecated, but it adds visual clues against representatives who have lasted just one short Parliament versus those that have been re-elected a few times! I look at the US system for the sake of comparison and see their elections actually have reliable ranges of polls on whether an election is a "toss up", "weak" "strong" "very weak" for a particular district etc etc. and whilst I am not seeking to emulate that degree of finesse (which is much harder to justify with a more nuanced range of parties in the UK) it would be sensible to at least give some visual statistics rather than bandying about 'safe' and 'marginal' overall judgments in so many of "our" articles. Many so-called safe seats have only been in one party's hands a decade. Others just happen to have lacked demographic change and teeter on slim, marginal majorities that news editors love to call "safe" only to create a double-whammy therefore of headlines for weeks to come!- Adam37 Talk 20:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
You are right that the style is not new. It is a style I have noticed is used in many Canadian Riding articles. However, it is new to the UK articles, apart from Battersea. I think it is better to have a consistency in presentation and would not welcome seeing some of these lists being changed to the Battersea style on an ad hoc basis.Graemp (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I was about to implement boldly the perceived improvement throughout. Do I have no taste?- Adam37 Talk 21:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
The techniques used - i.e.
{| border=1 cellpadding=5 cellspacing=0
|- bgcolor="CCCCCC"
use HTML 4.01 attributes which are marked obsolete in HTML5. Is there any reason that you can't use
{| class=wikitable
instead? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I didn't notice that and would not normally code like that purely for wasting bytes. Whoever edited Battersea and made it look more logical and respectful of politicians' respective tenures (or lack thereof) clearly should have understood that first, but understood here anyway now.- Adam37 Talk 22:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit]