User talk:Jheald

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

Archives[edit]


Editathon[edit]


London 91[edit]

Hi, we met at London 91 yesterday - I've added you to my list of Wikipedians I have met. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Jheald. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the links and the inspiring presentation about that impressive achievement. Good to meet you. Off to see the tulips nowbut will return to this. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Op ed[edit]

Hi, edit conflict, and I've just done a massive job on it.

Can you hold off for a few minutes, while I put mine in and integrate your recent edits? Tony (talk) 02:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm done, thanks. I made only a few tweaks to your more recent edits. Two requests/suggestions: slight overuse of semicolons, generally; and could you please not -- use double-hyphens. There are buttons underneath the edit-pane: closed em dash—or open en dash – are the two choices, and within quotes should be silently harmonised to your choice. It's a good piece, and really really important. Tony (talk) 02:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Tony1: (ec) Thanks for your help on this, and anything you can do to tighten it up or make it more persuasive. I'm about to crash out -- I think it's now got everything I was thinking of putting in to it, so the field is yours. I've asked our campaign team in Brussels to look over it, so they may have a few more tweaks or factual corrections in the morning. All best, Jheald (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

FoP[edit]

Hi Jheald, in your Signpost article you said we can send a hard copy of your letter to Brussels by post. Do you know the adress to send a letter to a MEP by post? --Davidpar (talk) 11:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

ITM[edit]

Hi Jheald, thanks for your contribution to ITM this week. In the future, though, please do not add stories to a Signpost story once it's been published -- instead, feel free to add it to the next issue. We need to avoid having late things about which the editors don't know, as we are responsible for what gets published. Thanks! Go Phightins! 13:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that story you're working on for the new ITM, that looks like a pretty comprehensive look at the issue. We're going to try to publish today or tomorrow, so let me know asap if you need more time to finish. Gamaliel (talk) 12:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: To be honest I'm a bit saturated with the FoP story, and it would be great if somebody with a more distanced news-eye could take it on. I've laid out some of the main developments since the end of last week, but it would be great if you or somebody else could take the bulk of it forward from here. I'll try to keep any new facts up to speed. There may also be a piece forthcoming from Jimbo in the Guardian's "Comment is Free" online section, but I don't know how concrete that yet is. Jheald (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Jheald, @Gamaliel:, another article just out by Andrew Orlowski in The Register: "Wikipedia jumps aboard the bogus 'freedom of panorama' bandwagon". Might be worth incorporating. Andreas JN466 14:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@Gamaliel and Jayen466: Feel free to add, if you think you can see a good place to work it in. I'm feeling a bit too done in atm to touch it.
For the record, I think Orlowski is wrong. The statements of Honeyball on BBC2 last week, Cavada as quoted in the article, and Cavada as quoted here were uncompromising, and reflected the success of solid lobbying by ADAGP, who did indeed want to see this brought in across the EU. ADAGP's lobbying had managed to win over all the MEPs from both EPP and S&D on the committee, including the MEPs from currently have FoP. And that's just in the parliment, where we can see what's going on. Who knows what they were achieving in the Commisson with the likes of Oettinger. Was this the last ditch? No. But was this the key moment to stop this proposal in its tracks? Yes.
The latest that I've heard after the hearing in the EP this morning (unconfirmed) is that Cavada might have now rung up the white flag. But I haven't seen a statement yet; and we can be very clear that this would not have happened without the public campaign, the petition, and the number of institutions that have come on board to speak out for FoP. 16:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Just to add that I've added a similar response in the comments thread there. Sorry if I didn't get this done sooner. Jheald (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this piece. I think it is ready to go. I plan on publishing within the hour, so ping me if you want to add anything. I'd prefer not to make substantive changes post-publication, but I am willing to delay if you think anything needs to be added. Gamaliel (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: Thanks for giving it the read-over. The only thing I have done, in the last 20 minutes, is to add three more pictures, to try to leaven what was otherwise quite a long slab of text. It's a shame that the Haus Corbusier pic is that way round, rather than a mirror image -- but I liked being able to show what WMFR had used, an image with freedom of panorama in contrast to the blacked-out ones, but one which had to come from outside France even for such a celebrated French architect. As far as I know the political line is still current; if there's any update, I'll put it in the comments. Jheald (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

FYI, it looks like we'll be publishing this evening EST. Gamaliel (talk) 13:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: So that's by or before midnight my time. I'll see if I can wrap it up, but I do have commitments from about 6:30 until 10. (now 6:08) Jheald (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I've moved your story here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-07-15/Special report Gamaliel (talk) 05:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, check out the narrative format we're trialing out right now for long-form pieces. ResMar 13:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Communications[edit]

Jheald, thanks for a non-hyperbolic contribution to the discussion on Jimbo's talk. I appreciate its fair-minded (NPOV? Face-smile.svg ) spirit, as opposed to some of the more sycophantic comments often found on that page. However, you lost me when you appeared to want to take the blame for the falsehoods in Wales' op-ed.

What compelled Wales to write, "Wikipedia only uses freely licensed images"? By no possible stretch of the imagination could he have been ignorant of the fact that there are millions of non-free files on the English and other Wikipedias, and that US fair-use law in particular provides generous exceptions for educational use.

Was there a good reason to claim otherwise in a high-profile letter addressed to the public? I don't think so. The need to put fire in a political screed does not excuse blatant falsities: that's the preserve of demagogues. Regards, Andreas JN466 23:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Andreas @Jayen466: Can't write much now, because it's getting on for one in the morning. If you bear in mind that Jimbo was writing under time pressure and word-count pressure for a general audience, I think the occasional slip or simplification is understandable. It's a reasonable message to get over, that Wikipedia does overwhelmingly try to use freely licensed images, and that by free it means usable not only by Wikipedia, but also free for people to be able to re-use in all sorts of contexts, including commercial.
Yes, there's a fair amount of non-free content here as well, re-usable in various jurisdictions to various extents under provisions of "fair use", "fair dealing" or "implied licence". The last probably covers most album covers, book covers and ongoing promotional material in many jurisdictions where U.S. fair use doesn't apply -- I believe it is probably that ("implied licence") that may be an arguable justification in France for such packaging material on fr-wiki and maybe some other promotional material -- though the collecting societies don't like it (one recently called implied licence a "failed doctrine"); but the French and German requirements for criticism/comment to be acceptable in contrast are pretty stringent. As for fr-wiki's use of images of modern buildings, the French collecting society ADAGP believes that's illegal, and say so a number of times in their publicity. I don't think they would sue fr-wiki, because the resulting outcry might be enough even to get freedom of panorama legislated in France. But it's not impossible; and an EU directive that had settled the question as an adopted piece of law across Europe would hugely strengthen their hand.
Wikimedia could try to argue U.S. jurisdiction and U.S. fair use for fr-wiki; but I'm not sure their chances would be particularly good, as (per the Berne convention) the rule for copyright law is lex loci protectionis -- the law of the territory for which copyright protection is claimed. Wikipedia could try to claim the 1st amendment and fair use against that, but given that the readership of fr-wiki is overwhelmingly outside the United States, I wouldn't put money on the argument succeeding. I suspect the best-case likely scenario would be a U.S. court trying to apply French law. This is why the rule of thumb has always been that different language wikis will usually follow the legal traditions associated with countries with that language.
The situation is slightly different for en-wiki, which plainly is directed in substantial part at a U.S. audience, from (predominantly) U.S. servers by a U.S.-based entity, so I would think any case would probably be run under U.S. law. (Though it's not impossible that some day the English High Court might have a go at us for some of our PD-Art images, on the basis that they are viewable in England, so under the principle of lex loci protectionis English law can be applied -- and the terms of such a judgment could then get enforced by a U.S. court). The rule-of-thumb we've come to re U.S. fair use is that a "master image" of a structure or work is probably acceptable in the context of an article specifically devoted to that work; while further images of details may be, if they make specific points that are raised in the article more understandable -- applied as quite a high threshold, and as sparingly as possible, as it probably should be.
So that would let us keep some images on some pages in some languages, most notably English. (As I did actually mention to various people and bodies that I personally wrote to). But it would annihilate the coverage on Commons, mean an end to such panoramas being allowable for Wiki Loves Monuments, and probably mean complete removal in most European languages. So it would be a very heavy hit. It might even conceivably lead to region-blocking for en-wiki, the way eg GoogleBooks and HathiTrust do for scans of books published between the 1870s and 1923 (available in the U.S. but not in Europe), if the images remained on en-wiki and a collecting society decided it wanted to have its pound of flesh.
And of course the books we research from would be less comprehensive and less well-illustrated too.
What the people pushing this wanted was for all commercial-scale use to have to be paid for ("licenses for panorama", as one collecting society put it). IMO it was appropriate to show what that would mean. Jheald (talk) 00:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request JhealdBot[edit]

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/JhealdBot as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT 18:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

Nomination for deletion of Template:Non-free use rationale album cover/old[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Non-free use rationale album cover/old has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Wdchk (talk) 15:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 September 20[edit]

You were involved in a discussion about File:Madonna-Material-Girl-333295.jpg. I invite you to the above DRV. --George Ho (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


Yo Ho Ho[edit]

WT:NFC#Clarification regarding general legitimacy of video game screenshots[edit]

Hi Jheald. I tweaked the formatting of your !vote at WT:NFC#Oppose a bit because I couldn't figure out how to get the "#" format to work properly. I tried a number of ways, but none of them would work. In the end, I changed the "#" to "*" because that was the only way which made sense. I think the problem may be with the way you divided your post into subsections. The "#" markup doesn't seem to work in such cases and subsequent "#" by other editors revert back to "1" by default. if you know a way to fix it, then please do. In general though, I don't think "#" is the preferred markup for such discussions, even RfCs, because the numbering implies some sort of counting of votes. I'm not sure why they did that in "Support", but I don't think it's right. Anyway, once again if you know how to fix it so that your post is "1" and mine is "2" using the "#" markup, then please do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Entropy - disambiguation page[edit]

Hi Jheald,

could you redo your comment on the disambiguation page please - that new section was caused by an error in the new section editing process (I tried to change the title, which it did but only after saving the page as was). Aarghdvaark (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wigmund (bishop), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bishop of Dorchester (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) 10:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

File:UofLondon logo.png at files for discussion[edit]

The image File:UofLondon logo.png has been listed at Files for Discussion. Please view the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 9#File:University of London.svg. This is a revival of the earlier discussion at the now-defunct WP:NFCR. Thank you, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Waris Hussein, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daniel Massey (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) 09:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Case filed[edit]

A case has been filed concerning you and the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain. You are being notified since you are an editor of this article. Please give a summary of dispute here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain Gordon410 (talk) 11:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Case filed[edit]

A case has been filed concerning you and the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain. This case is being re-filed. You are being notified since you are an editor of this article. Please give a summary of dispute here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain Gordon410 (talk) 11:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Jheald. 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)

January 2017[edit]

Please don't add or restore poorly sourced material on living people that is sourced only to tabloids. Per WP:BLPSOURCES this is not permitted. As regards your edit summary, the RfC is about a blanket ban on the Daily Mail as a source on Wikipedia. There is an existing consensus that it should not be used on BLPs, which this is. In addition to the Mail, the Daily Record is also a poor source. Thanks for your understanding. --John (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@John: WP:BLPSOURCES specifically refers to tabloid journalism, not 'journalism in tabloids'. There is a difference. "Tabloid journalism is a style of journalism that emphasizes sensational crime stories, gossip columns about celebrities and sports stars, junk food news and astrology" as our article puts it.
The facts I'm citing are mundane and routine, not sensationalist or gossipy. There's no reason to believe anything but that they are straightforward and accurate. Isn't it better to indicate where they came from, so people can judge for themselves, rather than to suppress their provenance? Jheald (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I do see what you mean; most of the material is not especially controversial. I had a quick look and there really is not much material on this person. The Daily Mail is definitely and unequivocally tabloid journalism, but just as a liar occasionally tells the truth, there may be no harm in using this mundane material. On the other hand, if this stuff is only available in these two low-quality sources, is it really important that we carry it? Could we compromise on restoring the material but with a source improvement tag, giving editors a month or two to find better sources? I'm uncomfortable having an article on a BLP so largely based on such poor sources. I did find one short article in the Scotsman which might help a bit. Thanks for negotiating in good faith, and I am sure we will work something out. --John (talk) 10:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
@John: One starts to run into problems of potential citogenesis. I strongly suspect the material on Mary Marquis in that Scotsman article was in fact drawn heavily from our article as it stood in January 2011 [1] -- for example the Lorraine Kelly quote (since removed from our article), the "first person seen on Border TV", "but it became her career for the next twenty-seven years", etc. Amusingly somebody offered a correction a day later [2], which was then rebutted a day or two after that, because our own article had had it right all the time after all.
Similarly this 2016 Daily Record piece [3] is almost an exact retread of our article. (Not that you like the Record, but there you go).
Even if this Wikipedia-involved citogenesis weren't the case, I think one could make quite a general proposition that an actual interview with a subject herself, even in the Mail, is actually a rather cleaner / more informative source for where material may originally have came from, rather than a subsequent "cuttings piece" in a later newspaper, whose own original sources may be opaque at best.
Obviously one needs to be absolutely careful with living people to "first do no harm", and it's a good thing that WP:BLP is a now lot more rigorous than it was in 2009. But in this case, I do feel some reassurance that the article appears to have had an edit from a close relative, possibly MM's husband (diff) -- who removed the Lorraine Kelly quote (and a record cover) -- but seems to have been comfortable enough with all the rest. Jheald (talk) 11:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I've posted at article talk and I suggest we continue the conversation there. --John (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Genealogy - newsletter No.1[edit]

Newsletter Nr 1 for WikiProject Genealogy (and Wikimedia genealogy project on Meta)
Stamboom png.svg

Participation:

This is the very first newsletter sent by mass mail to members in Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy, to everyone who voted a support for establishing a potential Wikimedia genealogy project on meta, and anyone who during the years showed an interest in genealogy on talk pages and likewise.

(To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, see below)

Progress report:

Since the Projects very first edit 9 december 2002 by User:Dan Koehl, which eventually became the WikiProject Genealogy, different templates were developed, and the portal Portal:Genealogy was founded by User:Michael A. White in 2008. Over the years a number of articles has been written, with more or less association to genealogy. And, very exciting, there is a proposal made on Meta by User:Another Believer to found a new Wikimedia Genealogy Project, read more at Meta; Wikimedia genealogy project where you also can support the creation with your vote, in case you havnt done so already.

Future:

The future of the Genealogy project on the English Wikipedia, and a potential creation of a new Wikimedia Genealogy Project, is something where you can make a an input.

You can

Cheers from your WikiProject Genealogy founder and coordinator Dan Koehl

To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery Dan Koehl (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

ArtUK links[edit]

Hi, thank you for updating the BBC Your Paintings links to the new ArtUK format on so many artist pages. Obviously this is a welcome improvement, but are you aware that for a handful of articles this seems to have generated an error message, which is displayed before the link ? Even with the error message the link still works, so this is a matter of article appearance rather than functionality. The pages affected, from my Watchlist, are

Apologies if this has nothing to do with your edits, but I thought it best to contact you as a first step to finding a solution to this.14GTR (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi @14GTR: this happened because I made a change to the {{Art UK bio}} template, but my change didn't work. I've reverted the template, but some of the wiki pages have been cached using the bad version. To make the red message go away, hit edit on the External links section & preview & save, without changing any text. That will refresh the cache for the page, using the good version. In time, the red messages will also go away by themselves, as other edits are made to the page, or the page cache is routinely updated. But I don't know how long that may take to happen.
I've learnt my lesson, and am now developing updates for the template in {{Art UK bio/sandbox}} -- specifically, one to draw and display the number of paintings automatically from Wikidata.
I'll go through the pages above with the null edit trick, and hope that that will account for most of them. Sorry to have messed up like this! (I thought I had reverted the bad version of the template within a minute, so was very surprised to see it so much propagated. Jheald (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I just checked your contribution history and seen the edits you made at Module talk:WikidataIB - apologies for not checking that first before posting here. I wouldn't say your change to the template didn't work - I have hundreds of British artists on my watchlist and only a handful have the error message. Many thanks.14GTR (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Genealogy - newsletter No.2[edit]

Newsletter Nr 2 for WikiProject Genealogy (and Wikimedia genealogy project on Meta)
Stamboom png.svg

Participation:

This is the second newsletter sent by mass mail to members in Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy, to everyone who voted a support for establishing a potential Wikimedia genealogy project on meta, and anyone who during the years showed an interest in genealogy on talk pages and likewise.

(To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please see below)

Progress report:

In order to improve communication between genealogy interested wikipedians, as well talking in chat mode about the potential new wiki, a new irc channel has been setup, and you are welcome to visit and try it out at: #wikimedia-genealogyconnect

(In case you are not familiar with IRC, or would prefer some info and intro, please see Wikipedias IRC tutorial)

At m:Talk:Wikimedia_genealogy_project#Wikimedia_user_group is discussed the possibility of creating a genealogy-related Wikimedia user group: please submit comments and suggestions, and whether you would like to be a member in such a group. Prime goal for the group is the creation of a new, free, genealogy wiki, but there is also a discussion weather we should propose a new project or support the adoption of an existing project?

Read more at Meta; Wikimedia genealogy project where you also can support the creation with your vote, in case you haven't done so already.

Future:

The future of the Genealogy project, and creation of a new Wikimedia Genealogy Project, is something where you can make a an input.

You can

Don't want newsletters? If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.

Cheers from your WikiProject Genealogy coordinator Dan Koehl.

To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

Wikidata[edit]

Hi Jheald, I noticed your question at Module talk:Wikidata#Qualifiers. You might want to try out {{Wikidata}} as well. Cheers! thayts💬 14:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Genealogy project need your vote for creation of an email list[edit]

Newsletter Nr 3 for WikiProject Genealogy (and Wikimedia genealogy project on Meta)
Stamboom png.svg

Participation:

This is the third newsletter sent by mass mail to members in Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy, to everyone who voted a support for establishing a potential Wikimedia genealogy project on meta, and anyone who during the years showed an interest in genealogy on talk pages and likewise.

(To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please see below)

Request:

In order to improve communication between genealogy interested wikipedians, as well as taking new, important steps towards a creation of a new project site, we need to make communication between the users easier and more effective.

At Mail list on meta is discussed the possibility of creating a genealogy-related Wikimedia email list. In order to request the creation of such a list, we need your voice and your vote.

In order to create a new list, we need to put a request it in Phabricator, and add a link to reasoning/explanation of purpose, and link to community consensus. Therefore we need your vote for this now, so we can request the creation of the mail list.

Read more about this email list at Meta; Wikimedia genealogy project mail list where you can support the creation of the mail list with your vote, in case you haven't done so already.

Future:

Don't want newsletters? If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.

Cheers from your WikiProject Genealogy coordinator Dan Koehl.

To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

WikiProject Genealogy - newsletter No.4: Mail list created![edit]

Newsletter Nr 4, 2017-03-24, for WikiProject Genealogy (and Wikimedia genealogy project on Meta)
Stamboom png.svg

Participation:

This is the fourth newsletter sent by mass mail to members in Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy, to everyone who voted a support for establishing a potential Wikimedia genealogy project on meta, and anyone who during the years showed an interest in genealogy on talk pages and likewise.

(To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please see below)

Mail list is created:

The project email list is now created and ready to use!

Please feel free to subscribe at https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-genealogy

Future:

Don't want newsletters? If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.

Cheers from your WikiProject Genealogy coordinator Dan Koehl.

To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

Woughton on the Green - really?[edit]

Are you sure that the part of the original Woughton parish left behind when Old Woughton left is really called "Woughton on the Green"? The councils websites [BC and PC] both still say "Woughton" or "Woughton Community Council" - see http://www.woughtoncommunitycouncil.gov.uk/council-information/who-are-we/ for example. The name you give is hard to believe, since WotG itself is in Old Woughton. Citation please. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman:. It does seem crazy, doesn't it. The source I was following was this page in the ONS database that is the central official repository for such names and boundaries (which the Ordnance Survey also follows, eg [4]. The downloadable version of the database gives a somewhat precise date of 22 May 2014 for the name-change (from "Woughton") to have apparently come into effect from 22 May 2014.
According to the rows in the downloadable database, the name for the original parish was apparently officially "Woughton on the Green". With effect from 1 April 2011 there was a modification to the boundary (under The Milton Keynes (Reorganisation of Community Governance) Order 2011), but the name remained "Woughton on the Green". Then there was the split, with effect from 1 April 2012 (under The Milton Keynes (Reorganisation of Community Governance) Order 2012), and the name of the new CP was "Woughton". Then, with effect from 22 May 2014, the boundaries apparently remain the same, but the name is to change to "Woughton on the Green".
Unhelpfully, the ONS database cites The Milton Keynes (Electoral Changes) Order 2014 as authority for the name change -- but the name doesn't appear to be in the PDF.
Conceivably, there might be an 'official' name for legal purposes that might have needed to be continuity in, for the purposes of some legal trust or bequest or something. Or the ONS may just have got it wrong, I don't know.
Commons (I think) tries to have category names that quite closely track the Ordnance Survey names, so that it can find and use official boundaries to move incoming pictures that have coordinates (eg from Geograph, or from smartphones) into the right categories. So I was trying to make sense of "Woughton on the Green" there, and then reflect what I had learnt to Wikipedia and Wikidata.
But I agree it does seem very confusing, and if you can make any more sense as to what's been going on, I'd be very grateful. Jheald (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
This is the same ONS that thinks that the population of Milton Keynes is two-thirds actual because they divided it into Bletchley and ... Milton Keynes! So a definite cock-up. Pending a more reliable source (at least Borough of Milton Keynes), i will do a partial revert. Meanwhile, would you repost your reply to me to the talk: Woughton (parish), please? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)