User talk:ClemRutter/Archives/2009/July

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

River Medway

What do you think of this diagram. If it needs any tweaking please feel free to tweak away. Once ready it can go into the article. Mjroots (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like some new symbols will be needed then. Mill on light blue river, light blue version of the dock symbols for large lakes. Mjroots (talk) 13:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
New improved version. We need a symbol for the site of the lock just downstream of the Medway Valley Railway crossing. I've split the sections into three per the articles on the watermills on the tributaries of the Medway (these will eventually get diagrams, based on this one). I've removed the background colour as it was too distracting. A26 crosses the river twice in Maidstone so I've reinstated that.
Re your comments, Suggest we revert back to your original splits for use on the River Medway article, and use my splits on the four Medway watermills articles as the splits would fit with the articles. We'll needd to find a way to mark Allington Lock as the limit of tidal flow too. Not sure whether the diagram needs to be completely collapsed on the River Medway article, I did that here for convenience. Mjroots (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, version three. I've split it how you originally split it. Made a few tweaks and hopefully improved it a bit. Mjroots (talk) 09:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

KILLED part, due to template_include_size overflow


I'm wondering, do we really need the collapsible sections? I think the diagram would be much narrower without them Mjroots (talk) 10:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Scrub that! I've found a way to reduce width. Mjroots (talk) 10:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

(od)I've just pasted the diagram into the River Medway article and previewed it. Length is not going to be a problem in that article. If the width could be reduced it would be an advantage. The show/hide button seems to be adding an extra column's width to the table. Maybe we don't need the collapsible sections? Mjroots (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

KILLED part, due to template_include_size overflow


Herewith the Mk IV version, incorporating info from the Medway Navigation diagram. I've left all bridges which are not on public roads, and the Hilden Brook (no watermills on that one). Are we getting near being able to use it yet?
The Medway is tidal as far as Allington Lock according to the Medway Navigation website. Mjroots (talk) 05:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Duration of Copyright (UK)

Just a friendly heads up on Duration of Copyright (UK). This appears to my untrained eye to be a copyright violation itself. You might want to take a look at it and see what you can do.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ClemRutter. You have new messages at Fabrictramp's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Mills

Hi Clem sorry to write to you out of the blue. I noticed your talk with mjroots about canals on his user talk page. I have not seen the whole conversation only this post but you were mentioning mills.

As it happens I was asked a few weeks ago to get some information for the windmills project, we have quite a lot in Cambridgeshire and I know some of the owners of some of them so I was happy to help. However I am not sure if you mean mills in that sense or in a canal sense (I have forgotten what little I know but isn't it something used on a lock or something, like the handle that raises the um oh the things that let the water in and out?). Sorry for my ignorance here but if you do mean mills as in a post mill or windmill or whatever then it would be useful to try and tie these all together, but if you mean it in a different sense obviously not. (And I used to be a miller but that was on military grade steel!)

Sorry this is so vague but just wanted to try to get an idea whether it is connected in any way or not, before giving you more details. A reply on my user talk page would be great. SimonTrew (talk) 10:11,4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Clem thanks for replying I have left you a fuller reply on my user page I don't know if you prefer it all in one place or on each user page, editors differ in their preferences. As I suspected, not the same kind of mills, no problems there but I do know a bit about the textile industry up that way having studied there and also my ex partner was/is very keen on textiles so we learnt a lot going around the museums etc there. So, though I doubt I can directly help you here, if you want a bit of sub-editing you know just another eye to glance over, then I would be more than happy to. You are quite right if the coverage is poor it needs to be improved certainly, it is a very important part of our history. SimonTrew (talk) 17:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester July Newsletter, Issue XVII

Delivered on 4 July 2009 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.

Nev1 (talk) 20:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Shudehill Mill

Hi Clem, Unless you're about to create an article about another Shudehill Mill, the Manchester one doesn't need (and shouldn't have) "Manchester" in its title. I was about to move the article, but thought I'd check with you first. PamD (talk) 11:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Bolton & Watt

Please see WT:MILLS for a discussion on whether these two people should be tagged as part of the WP. Mjroots (talk) 07:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

List of mills in Tameside

Out of curiosity, how would you imagine the above article looking if it ever became a Featured List? Do all of the mills and their locations feature in the Farnie book? Nev1 (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Out of the two lists you mentioned, I'd probably go for the Massachusetts format. The LCC table looks great but might be too difficult for new users to edit (or copy) and doesn't allow for sorting. Although there aren't any lists of mills that are FLs as afar as I'm aware, I'd image the list looking something like List of listed buildings in Runcorn (urban area).
I think establishing a list of good quality which others can emulate would be very useful. If a standard template could be created that would be great, but I don't have the know-how to do it and usually build tables from scratch. It's unfortunate that the fair use dispute didn't go our way as so many of those pictures were of good quality and really useful, especially when juxtaposed with modern pictures of the same site.
Different sources will provide different information (when making ward tables for Trafford, Tameside, City of Salford, and City of Carlisle it was impossible to use the same table for each one as the information was not provided by each local authority rather than a single organisation which would have allowed standardisation) so it has to be asked which fields are the most important and therefore most likely to be found everywhere. The first six columns I agree with completely (although location and geolocation could be merged), the architect not so much as there wasn't much variation and many cotton mills were very similar. As an alternative to architect how about client when it was built (company rather than an individual)? The image field column would have to be optional because of fair use issues; if there aren't that many, they could be added to the side of the article in a ribbon as list of Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester demonstrates. I don't think table width would be too much of a problem as List of listed buildings in Runcorn (urban area) has seven columns and the suggestion you made only has a few more and most would be one or two words wide.
How to sort the entries. Hmm. I think it would have to be taken on an article by article basis as location could have some very lopsided sections, but so could date. Within the table, perhaps something arbitrary might be used for sorting, such as alphabetically by name. The other columns could be sortable so then it wouldn't matter too much how the table was sorted initially.
Specifically for Tameside, a lot of survey work has been carried out by the University of Manchester Archaeological Unit so they've probably got a gazetteer or something published. I'll take a look and see what I can find. Nev1 (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of image on Naturism article

Hi Clem, I am having a problem following your rationale for removing the photo that I placed on the Naturism article under the heading "Personal and family nudism". The first line of that sections states "Nudism is often practiced in a person's home or garden, either personally or with members of the family". I found this photo

on Commons that was not being used. It portrays an adult male nude sunbathing on an outside patio with his hat pulled down over his face, as is a common practice while sunbathing in the bright sunlight. It fits the article insomuch as it is a depiction of a person practicing nudism / naturism while sunbathing. I placed it in the article where it was talking about Personal and family nudism in a persons home or garden, which is what this photo looks like, and you removed it. Your posted reason for removing it has me baffled. You stated "Rm image. Model can be identified. Self promotion. Does not illustrate the point of modestly sunbathing at home". Ok, you say the model can be identified ... How? Do you really think the real name of the person in this photo is "Ima Learner" ? And I see no way that the person in this photo can be identified by looking at this photo. You say "Self promotion" ... That is not a photo of me. I found it while looking for appropriate articles to place images that were currently not being used. You say "Does not illustrate the point of modestly sunbathing at home" Are you really serious? How do you "modestly" sunbathe naked? And, wouldn't a person be more cavalier in their sunbathing position if they were sunbathing in the privacy of there own backyard home garden or patio? One major point of sunbathing nude is to have an even "all over" tan. Are you going to sunbathe naked, but cross your legs for modesty? If you sunbathed naked in your home garden, but covered the genitals for modesty, would you still be naked? What would be the point of sunbathing naked in the first place if that were the case ? I know this is beginning to sound rediculous, but I'm sure you are getting my point. I understand that removing the photo is your decision and I respect that. I would just like to have some clarification on the reasons you stated for removing it. Please respond on my talk page.

Thank You for your time and consideration. NightFlyer (talk) 04:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Arkwright's Mill, Manchester

I found this whilst researching an article I was writing. Thought you might be interested. Mjroots (talk) 07:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ClemRutter/Archives/2009/July&oldid=1174009214"