User talk:Dave.Dunford

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

Notes columns and listed buildings[edit]

Hi Dave, as per your request the Derbyshire Grade I list now has a notes column where descriptions and contextual information can be added. Nev1 (talk) 12:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Nev. Will be interested to see how it looks with some of the other columns moved into that column; without that, I think there are too many columns. My reasons for wanting a Notes column were twofold:
  • As a space for extra, contextual information (which some Listed building lists already have, and which was otherwise rendered homeless)
  • As a home for some of the less important data (Date listed, List entry number) that currently have their own columns and which are not appropriate for sorting.

Dave.Dunford (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The list entry number is used when the file is uploaded to Commons, so moving it into the notes section might work aesthecially but I think it might not work with processing images. Perhaps, and this would be an issue for KTC to answer on Commons where you mentioned the issue, it could be optional to have the column hidden but still feeding into the WLM tool? Just a thought, there are already a lot of optional fields and that may be over-complicating things. I think making sure we don't lose that contextual information is important, which is why I have tried to tread much more carefully when the original lists contain references and descriptions. Nev1 (talk) 12:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Jonathan Meades[edit]

The article says he'll be out for 12 weeks. with kind regards Jodie25 (Jodie25) 19:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, but I still think the information about Meades' injury is both trivial and speculative, and falls foul of Wikipedia policies on both counts. While it's the job of journalists to speculate or report predicted outcomes, it's not the job of an encyclopaedia. Per WP:NOTDIARY, "news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person." Also, per WP:CRYSTAL, which I quoted when I first reverted your edit: "Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place." Much better to wait until Meades plays again, and then report how long he was out injured; it may be 10 weeks or it could be 14, and it's not as if it's the most significant thing that's ever happened in his career. Dave.Dunford (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Packhorse River articles[edit]

Sorry because I did not know about the tributary of the River Winster. For the sake of completing the column, could we have just that, "Tributary of the River Winster"? Apparently I am all right with adding the River Allen and the River Frome with clarifying counties in the Wikilinks. Perhaps I can create the Knowl Water article. I have written to the council about the Utterby bridge, but that may be on an unnamed stream. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem, it's not obvious from the available sources. I'd be fine with that if it doesn't mess the formatting up too much – I'll try it out. Good luck with the other articles; sorry I haven't been in touch or done anything with the packhorse bridge/river articles, but I've been working heavily on various local Listed Building articles, e.g. Grade I listed buildings in Derbyshire, Grade II* listed buildings in Derbyshire Dales. There may be scope for new articles there, though working out which buildings are most worthy of an article (and why) may not be obvious to a non-local and non-specialist. I did find time yesterday to photograph a packhorse bridge that didn't previously have a public domain photo, though :)
Regarding Utterby, there's no name for the stream on the relevant Ordnance Survey map and it's a very short stream, so probably not conducive to an article. Knowl Water is slightly longer, but still fairly minor. If you're still keen on river articles, River Meese could do with expanding, but it's already a stub. Dave.Dunford (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Anne Hegerty[edit]

While non independent sources may be used in parts of an article, the article as a whole must be built on content from third party sources. In Anne Hegerty, three quarters of the article is built from non-third party sources and so an improvement of sources is required. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Farlands Booth - welcome correction and thanks[edit]

Dear Dave

Thank you for your local input, for which I am very grateful. I am in the process of creating my own personal gazeteer of the British Isles and my first start point has been the various List of Places pages on Wikipedia. In the case of the Derbyshire list there are a very large number of entries that display as Red, which means that they do not have any article linked to them. These places lists are meant to be of cities, towns, villages and hamlets. I have come across some cases where what has proved to be just a single farm has been included in the list, so I have chosen to not include them in my own list. Farlands was one of those cases which was red. In order to validly change a red name, to a linked blue name, I have used the Internet to find support for addition of a sentence or two about that name in the appropriate article. By appropriate article I mean to say that I normally use the article for the parish in which the small place lies or the existing one for the nearest other hamlet or village. I have found that the visionofbritain.org.uk and streetmap.co.uk are most particularly useful for supporting what I am doing to improve Wikipedia's links.

Now to the specifics of my research re Farlands -

When I looked at the OS map for Hayfield, I thought that, going by the size of the lettering, Farlands Booth was being designated as a small hamlet, see

http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=403500&y=387500&z=120&sv=Hayfield&st=3&tl=Map+of+Hayfield,+Derbyshire+[City/Town/Village]&searchp=ids.srf&mapp=map.srf

I thank you for your correction, it would now just seem that the presence of Farlands, in the List of Places in Derbyshire, was one of those cases, which are not uncommon, where a single farm has been included in a list that is meant to only include places of a hamlet size or larger. I did think the reference to Kinder Scout could have been edited and left in though, as the article on Kinder Scout itself refers to Hayfield as being one of the 'entry points' for that National Nature Reserve, along with Edale. I have corrected the List of Places in Derbyshire entry to now just refer to Farlands as it did before; it is questionable, though, as to whether it actually deserves an entry in a list that is only meant to go down to hamlet size.

Your editing of my entry also gives me heart as it proves that at least somebody out there is double checking my work. Peer review is always good to experience for a researcher and bookworm type like myself.

Warmest regards

Philip Hunt

Wikiphunt (talk) 02:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Treak Cliff Cavern[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Yellow Army[edit]

I know, it's not a nickname for Oxford Utd, but it was a citation, The Yellow army was set up as a redirect to Norwich City, where it was a nickname without a citation. Bevo74 (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Buxton Opera House[edit]

Hi Dave, Saw that you had reverted the content I added yesterday to BOH and marked as 'notability unclear'. Not sure what that error definition means and how to update content to ensure clarity. Thanks Markxkr (Dave.Dunford) 06:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Markxkr. Dave.Dunford (talk) 08:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dave, Not sure if this is the right place to respond, so apologies if I have this wrong, thank you for your comments and 'guiding' me correctly on Wiki rules. Updated in all innocence, but understand the correct usage now. Thanks again. Markxkr (Dave.Dunford) 21:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Derbyshire moors[edit]

Hi,

I've just created a stub, at Derbyshire moors. Please can you add to it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Cresswell Crags[edit]

Downstairs, on a sort of platform under the stairs near one of the doors to the outside where tours start, there was a stuffed hyena - 2 weeks ago. What's there now then? Dougweller (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah right - we didn't go downstairs. I assumed it was (previously) in the main exhibition centre. I'll undo my change. Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much. We did a great tour of Pinhole cave - adults only, once a month, you also get to see their acquisitions room where they store the stuff not on display. A lot of which is animal bones unrelated to Cresswell but collected in the past and used for study purposes. Next year some famous scholars will be giving talks on evolution. Dougweller (talk) 12:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Fame in print[edit]

Now that you have made page 8 of the High Peak review- are you going to claim to be notable- and request a full Biography? -- Clem Rutter (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Ha ha! No, but I have put the results of my photographic wanderings into an article. Not many to capture now before I complete my little project. Dave.Dunford (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Agnathia[edit]

Hi my name is nadine wilson, im researching in2 agnathia, on 31/12/24, I gave birth to my son daniel who was born with agnathia, I need answers and am hoping u can help me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadinewilson79 (talkcontribs) 16:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Responded at User talk:Nadinewilson79. Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Our Mutual Friend[edit]

I suspect that he/she will be back, he/she seems relaxed about multiple accounts. I think a ban may be in order next time so a block can be issued on first quack. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 11:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Peak District[edit]

According to this: http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/610716/PDNPA-BAP-Species-Table-240815.pdf

There are Pine Martens in the southern area of the park. Sl3nderman3006 (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Not convinced. It was big news when one individual was photographed in Shropshire recently. Credible evidence of wild individuals required. Dave.Dunford (talk) 00:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Derbyshire Mammal Group's views on Pine Marten is worth reading. Even if Pine Martens are present in small numbers, they are not endemic nor are they a characteristic feature of the county's fauna (and the same goes the other species you mentioned). I'm struggling to think of an animal that is characteristic of the Peak District. Dave.Dunford (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

OK then, what about the biomes I added?, surely they were worth mentioning.Sl3nderman3006 (talk) 01:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

You may have a point – I'm not an ecologist – but I would observe that many other areas of England have those habitats and I'm not convinced that they're characteristic of the Peak District. In my layman's opinion, moorland is possibly a significant Peak District habitat (and you could perhaps add limestone or karst), but I'm not sure about coniferous forest, deciduous forest or heath. Apologies for not reverting more carefully; is there a page of guidance for what should be included in the biome and animal sections of an infobox? Dave.Dunford (talk) 01:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I never really thought it had to be exclusive to the National park, in my opinion it is just saying what collection habitats it holds, don't think it has to be characteristic, the animals probably have to be though. As for a page of guidance I am not sure. I will put moorland and Karst in though.Sl3nderman3006 (talk) 10:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

If you want to add two Peak District endemic plants, take a look at the section on botany I recently added to Derbyshire - but don't get too excited! I'm not going to get involved in a Peak District article as I prefer to focus on the whole county of Derbyshire. But I'd comment on a number of things you could consider. Use the Landscape Character Assessment to define the 3 LCAs: Dark Peak, White Peak and South West Peak (the latter has just started its own enhancement project). Their descriptions will give you some of the general habitats across the three areas. see [1] The PD Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) will identify the key habitats of conservation prority to the Peak District - you could consider either listing or referring to the key UKBAP species. Do note that the Peak District BAP area is not the same as the PDNPA area - the latter is a boundary of convenience; the former is a larger, Landscape Character-based definition. Apart from two insignficant mapping errors on the part of the PDNPA (at Carsington Res. and at Matlock Woods SSSI, their BAP boundary perfectly abuts the Lowland Derbyshire BAP boundary, so extends well beyond the PDNPA one. I suggest the article stresses how 'The Peak District' can be understood to mean different things. I'd also suggest the most important distinctive Peak District habitats are the calcareous grassland and calaminarian grasslands of the White Peak and the upland ash woodlands, and heathlands (moorlands) of the Dark Peak, and have their own distinctive species - none that I know of being endemic apart from H. naviense and Derbyshire feather moss. Of course mountain hare, red grouse and curlew are just three of a number of characteristic animals of the Dark Peak. These are completely different from those in the White Peak, where you could consider species like the dipper, burnt tip orchid, jacobs ladder, dark red helleborine, flat sedge, or red hemp-nettle as UKBAP species quite characteristic of the limestone dales. You might decide that the water vole is worth a mention - it's known from lowland waters, but a few years back was discovered to also occupy some very high and isolated upland moorland streams. Raptor persecution/conservation issues/rewilding of the uplands could be expanded upon (see the NT's recent plan), noting too that there's the 'Pollinating the Peak' project, focusing on species like the bilberry bumblebee and peak district communities doing their bit towards the National Pollinator Strategy - worth keeping a watch on for developing stories. At a quick glance I didn't see any reference int he article to the very significant areas of SPAs and SACs, SSSIs and NNRs within the Peak District nor the fact that the Peak District has its own LNP. The Moors for the Future project is doing a lot to restore degraded moorland, damaged by air pollution and intensive management for the grouse industry, and the issues surrounding desertification of both upland heathland and the White Peak plateau. John Farey's Agriculture and Minerals of Derbyshire gives a great historic perspective on how the habitats in the Peak District once looked - see his rant against heather in the once acidic heaths of the White Peak which sadly are almost now totally gone. These are just a few quick, and rather garbled thoughts - I hope there might be something there to help you add extra content or perspective. Parkywiki (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Denis Smith (footballer)[edit]

Hi, I've just amended Smith's stats for his first Oxford stint, and noticed they differ from those at List of Oxford United F.C. managers. Do you know where the discrepancy lies? Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

No idea, I'm afraid. Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Packhorse bridges[edit]

Packhorse bridge have come to my attention recently, inspiring me to post some talk page requests, such as Talk:Coaltown of Balgonie and others. Cheers for Spring!--DThomsen8 (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that – I just happened to come across Barrel Brig while looking for something else. There's a picture at [2] but it's not public domain, and there's nothing on Geograph, my usual first source. I did contemplate writing the River Ore, Fife article, but for now it's a redlink. If you were looking for a project...? Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Look at River Leven, Fife for the River Ore, Fife. Perhaps there should be a disambig for River Ore or River Ore, Suffolk, or something else for the two rivers. What would you suggest?--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Also, what do you think about allowing sorts on Photograph columns, such as List of municipalities in Pennsylvania?--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Winster, Cumbria[edit]

See Talk:Packhorse bridge. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Please take a look at User:Dthomsen8/sandbox/Winster, Cumbria before I go live, and make any suggestions, especially on the Packhorse bridges section. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Ripponden Bridge[edit]

Having just had confirmation and second reference for the bridge in the English Heritage List, and come back to add the info, I discover you have done it! Impressive. Is the Group intended to reflect his list or his specification? (The Calderdale reference indicates a 6-foot width) AndrewTeal (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The Group number is from Hinchliffe's book. The bridge at Ripponden is listed in there, but when I compiled the list in the article I took the decision to only include his Group 1 bridges and he has Ripponden down as Group 2, I think on grounds of its width (which he lists as 9'6"). To be honest, it's a fuzzy line. Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Sean Devine[edit]

Hi Dave,

You recently reverted a couple of changes I made to the Redvers Buller and Sean Devine entries. While I disagree that my edit on the Buller page was 'attempted humour' - it was genuinely funny, and I will stand by that - I can see why it wasn't especially helpful. However, the Sean Devine edit was relevant and, I think, necessary. You called it 'unencyclopaedic', but I'd argue that the fact that Sean Devine once had a chant associated with him that had the word 'fuck' in it is just about the only interesting thing that happened to him in an otherwise unremarkable career.

Best wishes,

Niklit

Neither of your edits you mention struck me as constructive or helping the credibility of Wikipedia. Your Redvers Buller edit [3] was plainly trivial and unencyclopaedic – that article is on my watchlist and I reverted it without a moment's hesitation, and would again. If it had just been about the traffic cone, given the valid source, it might have been encyclopaedic but the unsourced "joke" about traffic congestion took it over the line. Your edit on Sean Devine [4] was probably more borderline but the profanity seemed unnecessary and I didn't think the information, true or not, was notable or useful (many if not most players have chants, in my experience). Also it was referenced to a source that fails WP:USERGENERATED. Without the Redvers Buller edit I probably wouldn't have bothered to revert it, though I still think it's cruft at best. Dave.Dunford (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Only Connect series pages[edit]

Hi Dave,

Is there a publicised list of reasons why certain UK gameshows are allowed season pages (such as University Challenge ), and others are allowed results (of use to a limited set of people) such as Make Me An Egghead . If If the OC pages are crufting can you explain why others that are virtually identical aren't? It's hard to deal with arbitrary inconsistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonybourtonville (talkcontribs) 20:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I don't actually feel strongly on this one (as a former contestant – in Series 4 – I was quite pleased to have my sole mention on Wikipedia before the article was deleted!) but I'm just seeking consistency. See WP:Articles for deletion/Only Connect (series 1). Dave.Dunford (talk) 23:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Grade II* listed buildings in North East Derbyshire[edit]

The technical explanation is in the last current section at my talkpage. TLDR This was one of the one-image-categories I did not add while Kelly working for from the same baseset did. What is unclear is if it was added knowingly as a one-image-category or not. Agathoclea (talk) 13:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Packhorse bridge[edit]

I last added to Packhorse bridge in July, but I would like to go back to adding towns, rivers, and photos of Packhorse bridges and rivers, perhaps with assistance from people in England. Can you tell me how to sort on photos of bridges to get a list of bridges without photos? Also, list for me any other rivers or towns needing articles or photos. --Dthomsen8 (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi there – sorry for long delay in replying. The photograph column is explicitly specified as unsortable in the code. You could copy and paste the article code into a sandbox and remove the text class="unsortable" from the table header, and then the sort should work. Good luck. I'll have a look at the rivers without wikilinks, but at first glance most of the unlinked ones are fairly minor waterways that might not warrant an article. Dave.Dunford (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Alport Height[edit]

I have seen the BT Tower in Birmingham and both masts from Alport Height. Don't have a clear photo of them unfortunately. I have a photo that shows the Wrekin if you zoom in properly. The photo also shows an outline of what I think is the Malverns but not 100%sure! I'll get some more photos next time I'm up there! 2.27.223.159 (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Fisher comma[edit]

Hello Dave- Wikipedia's crowd-sourced MOS notwithstanding, I removed that extraneous comma again. No interest in a punctuation war, but I would suggest you look this up somewhere besides our manual of style. The only anglophones I know of who would pause at that point in a sentence would be certain younger people from California, or those under their influence (see tangentially related info at Valspeak). A good rule of thumb in these cases is "no pause, no comma". If you change it again, I'm not going to revert you, but I wanted to let you know where I was coming from. Regards from your somewhat incorrigible copyeditor on the other side of the briny, Eric talk 17:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Eric. I'm afraid that – speaking as a professional editor, albeit a British one – you're wrong. The comma isn't extraneous. Firstly, MOS isn't the only place this usage is specified − every source I can find requires one (e.g. [5], [6], [7] [8]; I don't have access to them but apparently the AP style guide and the Chicago Manual of Style say the same). Secondly, commas aren't only about pauses: in this construction, the state name is a parenthesis, so it needs two commas regardless of how you would read it. It's a bit pedantic, perhaps, but to my eyes your preferred usage is akin to opening a bracket and not closing it again. And, besides, if we're going to ignore the MOS, what's the point in having it? Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Some pretty reliable sources are cited as firmly in favour of the double comma at http://ask.metafilter.com/239830/When-did-become-OK-to-drop-the-comma-after-a-state – as well as the aforementioned AP and Chicago Style Guides there are citations from the Economist Style Guide ("American states: commas are essential (and often left out) after the names of American states when these are written as though they were part of an address"), The Copyeditor's Handbook ("In expressions of the form 'City, State,' place commas before and after the name of the state"), the New York Times ("The following sentences all lack a necessary comma. Can you spot where?...He was born in Des Moines, Iowa in 1964.") and English Grammar for Dummies ("If there is no street address — just a city and a state — put a comma between the city and the state. If the sentence continues after the state name, place a comma after the state"). It might be going out of fashion, but in my professional opinion it's still current, careful usage. Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Agreed - we need a closing comma after "New Hampshire" because it's a dependent and defining clause (if it was removed the sentence would still make sense, but would be less clear). If the sentence said only "Manchester" with no state following it, then this disputed comma would not be necessary.
Consider these two sentences: Living in Manchester, New Hampshire, is wonderful ... as compared to ... Living in Manchester, New Hampshire is wonderful ... the first says living in the city is wonderful, the second says that the state is wonderful when you're in the city. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Ok guys, I yield. I'm usually the curmudgeon in these situations, not the loose cannon. I like rules, but I just don't agree with this one, and I think some outdated or eccentric conventions get perpetuated by moldy (mouldy) or incestuous style guides (e.g. USDA hyphenating terms like Douglas fir, NYT hyphenating non-adjectival one third). David, I can see where your example wants the comma, but I think that somehow living ... is calls for it more urgently than does in ... held in the fisher sentence. Thanks to both of you for the input. Eric talk 19:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Haddon Hall[edit]

Hello Dave. I'm not sure I'd call it a compromise, but I appreciate your attempt to calm the waters. I removed the date because it isn't usual to specify it in that way - my edit seemed fairly uncontroversial, so I was a bit taken aback to find it reverted by someone calling it "sleazy", plus the other insults. I then realised this was the same editor who I had reverted on the Peak District article earlier (here), so assumed they'd looked at my contributions and were just being vengeful and not really interested in Haddon Hall, which is why I kept reverting. This was compounded when I realised this was the same editor who previously had twice made uncivil comments on my talkpage (here and here), seemingly without provocation. Looking deeper, I suspect it might be the same editor that I had a run-in with at the Portesham article a few years ago (a long saga from here onwards), as the dynamic IP addresses seem on the whole to locate to a similar area. Either way, I don't believe this editor is particularly motivated by any desire for improving Wikipedia - how can they be, when they've said it's "to [sic] damn strict"? - and I thus doubt the veracity of their claims. Anyway, these days I'm often near Haddon Hall, so might one day (soonish) take a more recent picture of my own. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

A new picture might resolve it, but I thought it might give the IP an opportunity for a climb down. To be honest, I don't see a massive problem with the picture being dated (another further down the article has the caption "Haddon Hall's long gallery c.1890"), and the date of the photo appears to be accurate. Dave.Dunford (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree it's not a massive problem, and I can understand a caption date on an image from years and years ago (outside the present era), but they always look odd to me when specifying just a few years ago, particularly on historic buildings that don't tend to change much. For example, do you not think it would look eccentric if the caption for the main image of this article stated that the image was taken in 2007? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
The anon editor's clearly got a bad attitude and I know from experience how hard it is to let these things go. But this one doesn't feel like a fight worth winning. In his edit summaries he suggests that the entrance has changed over the years – although I don't know whether that's true, if the changes were relatively recent it might be half a justification (and the date doesn't seem that anomalous or obtrusive to me: a caption of "Haddon Hall" might seem a little bit superfluous). Another tack might be to label the photo more informatively: referring to the plan in the Derbyshire Pevsner (p. 222–3) and various other photos it looks like "Gateway into the Great Hall from the Lower Court" might be appropriate. Dave.Dunford (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree this isn't worth fighting over - my motivation for starting this thread was actually just to provide information about a slightly strange edit war. Your suggestion sounds reasonable to me, though I expect if I make it, it will just be reverted, simply because it's made by me. But as I said, I hope to visit Haddon soon anway. I saw it from a distance today, though didn't have time to go close enough to take a picture, or even just see whether the entrance has changed. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

England[edit]

Moved to Talk:Oxfordshire. Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

2017 General election[edit]

Hi. Please see the full list of MPs elected. As you can see, they all have existing articles already. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Lugnuts:: Noted. Wendy Chamberlain (apparently an unsuccessful LD candidate) was ConservativeHome's mistake http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2017/06/general-election-2017-seats-won-and-lost.html. Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Uffington White Horse[edit]

It's not a matter of "making my case". I removed a haphazard list of trivia of no clear relevance to the subject matter and with nothing in the way of reliable, independent sourcing to indicate sustained, non-trivial coverage. Changing the section title from "In popular culture" to "cultural references" is a ridiculous solution. If you believe the list of trivia is important then the burden is on you to prove it via sourcing and alter the format from a list of factoids into legible prose as per the rest of the article. 79.72.142.21 (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Copied to Talk:Uffington White Horse. Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Kindly stop edit-warring. I've clearly explained the reasons for removing the content and you persist in reverting me for no reason. 79.72.142.21 (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Take it to Talk:Uffington White Horse and establish consensus. Dave.Dunford (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
You have edit-warred with me and belatedly created a talkpage discussion to create the appearance of seeking consensus. If you wish to reintroduce factoids from the mess of trivia then please find sourcing to prove that the references are non-trivial. And write it in prose, per the rest of the article, rather than a list of bullet points. And it's a little late to send me messages ordering me to AGF when you've been doing the opposite from the beginning. 79.72.142.21 (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Take it to Talk:Uffington White Horse and establish consensus. Dave.Dunford (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Fractions[edit]

Morning, Dave. Thank for the improvements, photos etc you have added to the Eccleston etc articles. I note that you have converted some frac templates into "proper" fractions, but I have never discovered how to do it. Can you advise me, please. Cheers, --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Peter I. Vardy: You're welcome: I was in Eccleston for a party and took the opportunity to sneak out and capture (most of) the listed buildings. Rewarding village. To answer the question about fractions, I use the "Special characters" tab on the Enhanced editing toolbar, which I usually have permanently open with the "Symbols" (fourth line down) option selected. This offers the following fractions with a single mouse click: ½ ⅓ ⅔ ¼ ¾ ⅛ ⅜ ⅝ ⅞. Alternatively (and more long-windedly), I think you can cut and paste from Word.

SpecialCharacters.jpg Dave.Dunford (talk) 08:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

That's brilliant; many thanks. I hadn't tried that one! As you say, Eccleston is rather special, and unspoilt; and greatly influenced by my favourite Chester architect, John Douglas. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia rules to support a POV[edit]

With reference to your deletion of my point about the M67 roundabout being infamous (everybody knows it is) this is a classic example of how Wikipedia shouldn`t work, and, furthermore, it`s using Wikipedia rules to support ones own POV (as I explain on my User Page) JustinSmith (talk) 08:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@JustinSmith: I have very little opinion about the roundabout at the end of the M67, so I refute your accusations of POV-pushing (aside: please assume good faith). What you say about the roundabout may be accurate, but that's not the point. If "everybody knows" something, there should be plenty of quotes from a reputable reference somewhere that you can cite in support. Otherwise, it's original research, which is why I undid your change. Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I refute the fact that just because something is in a book or on a website is suddenly becomes correct but stuff which is a fact and provably so by anyone who cares to take the time, isn`t. It`s basically totally illogical, the example of Pendolino windows (on my User page) is the best one. Just out of interest, have you very little opinion either way about the Longdendale bypass ? I`m not suggesting anything, just asking. Personally I don`t usually approve of new roads, they often just create more traffic, but the Longdendale bypass is an exception, there`s no other way from Sheffield to Manchester and the NW.JustinSmith (talk) 10:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
@JustinSmith: My views on the Longdendale bypass are as irrelevant as yours on the logic of Wikipedia's verifiability policies, I'm afraid. If you object to the long-established norms for referencing on Wikipedia, you should take it up in the relevant forum, not argue case-by-case with editors who are simply applying the policies. But as it happens, I do agree with the policy: without the requirement for a citation, any self-appointed expert could introduce their own opinion, however outlandish, as incontrovertible fact into a Wikipedia article without challenge. That's true whether the subject is controversial (UFOs, say), uncontroversial (the size of Pendolino windows) or somewhere in between (the misuse and infamy or otherwise of a motorway roundabout). Dave.Dunford (talk)

I tell you what, we`ll agree to disagree.JustinSmith (talk) 13:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually I have found a citation, though this is a classic example of how Wikipedia shouldn`t work anyway. The citation only proves something everyone who knows anything about the M67 knows to be a fact, so what if it`s "original research ? The fact that this information should only become available because someone else just happened to have already researched it, and wouldn`t have become available if they hadn`t (despite it being an incontrovertible fact), is disgraceful, particularly as, in my experience, generally speaking, those taking the info off have an axe to grind. There are a lot of Wikipedia editors who should take a long look at themselves. Not that I`m necessarily saying that`s happened here. Never have I ever taken any onfo off Wikipedia just because it doesn`t have a citation unless I know for a fact it`s incorrect. JustinSmith (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I'll agree to disagree, as you said, and I don't know why you're continuing to argue with me about it: I didn't invent the policy, I'm just following it and I don't have an axe to grind about the particular edit that seems to have upset you. I was thinking about this the other day: a traditional encyclopedia doesn't need citations because you can generally assume that the person who wrote the entry is a subject expert. Wikipedia doesn't work that way – it's the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" – and if everyone adds their own pet theories or opinions without fear of contradiction it would rapidly become worthless. By all means add your citation but I see no point in your fighting a one-man war against a "widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow". Dave.Dunford (talk) 20:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Your citation confirms that the junction is "congested", but not that it's "infamous", and says nothing about people jumping the queue. Dave.Dunford (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I certainly didn`t suggest that people should be able to put their pet theories on without fear of contradiction. I agree that would be worthless. All contributions should be scrutinized. It`s relatively rare for me to delete other users additions, but I have done so quiet few times if I know for a fact what they`re saying is wrong. Whether it`s cited or not is irrelevant to me, quiet apart from anything any student of history knows you can usually get someone to agree with you even if it`s baloney. For instance the odd historian reckons Hitler could have successfully invaded the UK in 1940. The best example of the citation rule being used for a POV is an addition I had on the Severn Bore page for about 10 years pointing out that surfers and motorboats ruin the natural spectacle. That`s just a fact. Eventually someone took it off saying it wasn`t cited and was original research. Guess what ? I checked on his other contributions and he had connections to surfing and power boats. It was disgusting.

I`d have thought the fact that the M67 junction was one of the worst around meant it was infamous ! It is ! On the queue jumping thing this proves most traffic goes straight on, which everyone knows who uses that junction anyway. Most drivers know what goes on, you can sit in that queue and see cars which have gone past in the right lane appearing round the roundabout. You stick to the rules and try to do the right fair thing and suffer for it, it`s carnage. --JustinSmith (talk) 09:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Justin, you've made your opinions clear. I don't agree with you, and I won't be responding any further. Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Grammar bit[edit]

Hi there DD, from Portugal,

In all my years of editing here (one decade and counting), from what I have perceived, you write figures in full ("seventh", "ninth", etc) when they amount to less than ten. After that, it's "11th", "18th", etc.

Happy editing, sorry for any inconvenience --Quite A Character (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, but I'm also an editor and in my opinion there's no universal usage, merely house style. I agree that you would normally spell out the word if possible in a prose setting, but when talking football stats it's not so clear-cut. I'll bear it in mind. Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Help[edit]

What does it mean major tours in tennis because it says the let is not a legal serve in major tours! What does it mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.225.253 (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@93.143.225.253: I have no idea, I'm afraid. I'm not a tennis expert and I don't remember editing any tennis-related articles lately, so I'm not sure why you're asking me, to be honest. Dave.Dunford (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Driven Grouse Shooting[edit]

I made amendments to this page, which you deleted. I'm more than happy to discuss them with you. Unfortunately, without any discussion, you have accused me of bias and bad faith in your post on my talk page. The Wikipedia dispute page asks editors to focus on content and to assume the efforts of others are in good faith. 'Bringing up conduct during discussions about content creates a distraction and may inflame the situation.'

Are you prepared to have a debate without making any more personal attacks on me?

Serac73 (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)Serac73

Your insertions and counter-revert were also made "without any discussion" and I made no accusation of bad faith. Apologies if you feel I've made personal attacks but I think your anti-shooting position – which I openly admit I share – is obvious from your edit summary ("...written as propaganda for grouse shooting"). I was merely trying to apply Wikipedia's rules, and keep the article neutral. In particular, I didn't think the tone of "This reads as..." was appropriate for a Wikipedia article: the relevance of the heather moorland/rainforest comparison is a valid matter for debate, but Wikipedia articles aren't there as a platform for debate; the statement about the relative abundance of the two habitats is a matter of fact and your addition was an (uncited) editorial comment on the article. With your addition the article felt like it was arguing with itself. Although the tone of the article might seem pro-shooting, it's an article about the "sport", not particularly about the controversy (for which there is already a "Criticism" section).
"What some see as routine control is 'horrific wildlife persecution' for others." should be properly cited (it reads, rather ironically given the subject, like weasel words: see "Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed."). The news story about the badger persecution comes across as random and anecdotal and the use of an external link to the BBC story rather than a citation is non-standard. Some of the broad topics you've inserted are already covered in the Criticism section.
These are the reasons for my reversion of your edit – purely editorial and nothing to do with my personal views, which are probably close to yours. I suggest this conversation would be better held on the article's Talk page rather than in our respective User Talk pages. Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Historic County: Berkshire/Oxfordshire[edit]

Hi there, I noticed an edit you made to the page on Didcot, to remove the county information stating the current Historic County. Although I understand that not everyone will agree, the Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements guide currently states that the Lead section should include the Historic County. Furthermore, many UK city pages, including for example Manchester and Birmingham, clearly state the Historic County within the Infobox.

I hope that this clarifies why I have added this information back, to maintain consistency.

Kind Regards, Acapital (talk) 16:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

My problem is not that the historical county is mentioned, but that your wording states that Didcot is (as in "is currently") in the historic county of Berkshire. That's in clear breach of the guideline I cited in my edit summary: "we do not take the minority view that the historic/ancient/traditional counties still exist with the former boundaries". And, for the record, I didn't remove the information, I merely reverted to the accurate and compliant version that was there before, which mentions that Didcot was historically in Berkshire, but doesn't suggest that it still is (as your version does). I don't feel strongly enough to get into an edit war with you but I'm not keen on your wording, which seems to be espousing the "minority view" mentioned at WP:UKCOUNTIES, and your edit summary "...Didcot is still within the Historic county of Berkshire" supports this view. WP:UKTOWNS says the historical county should be mentioned, but not that the article should claim that the settlement is still in that county. Dave.Dunford (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Nor do I wish to debate this issue, but I see that the guide Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements currently states that the Historic County may be included in the Lead section. Therefore, I can only think that both guidelines are in direct conflict with each other, and this is the root of the issue that needs to be clarified. The wording of 'Historically' seems to refer to a past event, and this is obviously regarding the boundary changes between Berkshire and Oxfordshire for the purposes of local government in 1974. But my edits were trying to describe the 'Historic County' which have very different boundaries to the Metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties of England. Acapital (talk) 01:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I think you're (deliberately?) missing the point. It's legitimate (indeed, recommended) that the historical county should be mentioned in the lead where it differs from the current county. What's not recommended, anywhere, in any guideline, is that an article should suggest that the settlement is still in the historical county. Your edit history suggests you espouse the (explicitly deprecated) policy of suggesting otherwise. The guidelines are not inconsistent, and the position of Didcot was quite clear before you changed it; your edit (now reverted again, I see) introduced inaccuracy rather than clarifying the position. Dave.Dunford (talk) 06:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I think we can agree to disagree with regards to this. If the guidelines for the Lead section of town/city pages are like this, then I struggle to see why other pages for towns/cities can state the Historic County in the Infobox. Maybe in the future this can be incorporated into the Didcot page's Infobox. Acapital (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

You really do seem to be deliberately missing the point. There's no "agreeing to disagree" here. Nobody is disputing that Didcot (and Abingdon, Wantage, Faringdon, etc.) used to be in Berkshire, historically (as the current wording states). Nobody has any objection to the infobox or the lead reflecting that (though there seem to be technical reasons why the Infobox UK place template doesn't have a "historic county" parameter – perhaps it should). But you seem to be suggesting that Didcot is still, in some meaningful way, in Berkshire. It isn't. If you have a problem with that view, you need to take it up on the relevant policy page, not by tweaking individual affected articles. Dave.Dunford (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

It would be helpful if the Infobox for the Didcot page included the Historic County. Acapital (talk) 12:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

No objection to that, but the problem seems to be that the Infobox UK place template (as used by the Didcot article) doesn't offer a parameter for the historic county. The Manchester and Birmingham articles use Template:Infobox settlement, which offers up to six different subdivisions. I don't know whether all the functions of Infobox UK place can be emulated using Infobox settlement. Dave.Dunford (talk) 13:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)