User talk:Lewisskinner/Archive Nov 2006

Help:Edit summary

When editing an article, there is a small field labeled "Summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

It is highly recommended that one fill in the edit summary field, as it makes it easier for you and your fellow contributors to understand what has changed, and is helpful when going through the history of the page. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 17:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photo from M Park

Terrific photo in Sheffield - greatly enjoyed the zoom view. roundhouse 22:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second that ! Wikityke 22:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys :) L.J.Skinner_{something to say?} 00:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Museums ..." vs. "Art museums and galleries ..."

Dear Lewis, please note that "Art museums and galleries ..." is for art museums / art galleries only and is a sub-category of "Museums ..." which includes all types of museums, not just art museums. See similar usage elsewhere. I have been tidying up the categories for Sheffield museum to be in line with general usage, so I suggest you don't change it all back. Have a look at how the rest of the "museums" hierarchy works first. Well done for getting Sheffield's museums on Wikipedia anyway. I hope this is helpful. Regards, Jonathan Bowen 00:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying, but I like having all museums/galleries in one place. The problem we have is that Sheffield apparently has very few museums, as they are split evenly between "museums", "galleries" and the templates "Sheffield galleries and Museums Trust" and "Sheffield Industrial Museums Trust" L.J.Skinner_{something to say?} 02:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, perhaps you should delete the sub-categories, although now that they are created, they give structure to the museums in Sheffield, so I would suggest leaving them. If there are any other museums like the Sheffield Fire and Police Museum that are not in one of these sub-categories, perhaps it would be worth adding these to populate Category:Museums in Sheffield more. — Jonathan Bowen 12:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so are you suggesting that, say, Weston Park Museum should be under "category:Sheffield Galleries and Museums Trust" but not under "category:Museums in sheffield"? Just so I can myself be clear and we're singing from the same hymn sheet! L.J.Skinner_{something to say?} 14:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

When adding a template to an article, please consider whether it will be useful. Template:Yorkshire and the Humber links districts in the region and just takes up space in articles on villages. It's even worse in the Barnsley, Rotherham and Doncaster articles, as it may confuse people into thinking that these are about the districts, when they are actually on the towns. Finally, I've deleted the "articles" you created which consisted solely of templates and an image. When you create articles, it is essential that they have some content - at least a sentence explaining what the topic is. Warofdreams talk 02:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Denny Building

Hi! I have placed a prod tag on this article—it is really a candidate for speedy deletion under criteria A1 "Very short articles providing little or no context". If you disagree with the deletion and can extend the article to at least the length of a reasonable stub (i.e. at least "three to ten short sentences"), then please do. JeremyA 00:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Heads up. It was something I'd intended to get around to eventually, so I figured I may as well do it now. I usually create nothing pages just to remind myself of what I want to do next, and these unfortunately get deleted, so it's nice to get the warning.

My next projects are West Street, Sheffield, West End, Sheffield (may well be the same page) and Leopold Square L.J.Skinner_{something to say?} 02:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Rather than create bare-bones articles you could make yourself a sandbox page at User:Lewisskinner/Sandbox—for example, if you look through the history of mine you'll see a bunch of half-finished ideas and experiments. You can also draft whole articles in your user space if you want—for example you could have made User:Lewisskinner/Alfred Denny Building, and then moved it into the main article space when you were ready.

Just as another heads up, the photographs that you have added to the Alfred Denny Building article are likely to get deleted unless you fix the tags. I would have fixed them for you but the flickr page that you linked to for Image:Alfred Denny 1.jpg says that it is cc-by-nc (a licence that unfortunately we can't use here), and for Image:Alfred Denny banner.jpg I think that you have linked to the wrong flickr page. —JeremyA 02:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm sorry, but I've deleted these two images. Unfortunately Wikipedia does not allow the use of photos that have noncommercial restrictions in the licence. —JeremyA 22:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twikker

I have enjoyed some of your contributions, eg the photo from Meersbrook Park (above). I would be most grateful if the shot of King Edwards (top left by the Royal Hallam) could be magnified and placed on the school page. Or maybe you have a better one.

Could you perhaps leave Twikker alone for a bit? It has had a short and tempestuous life so far and would like to develop its refs and links over the next few weeks. Ars longa, vita brevis. roundhouse 00:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, roundhouse! If Lewis can add data to the Twikker page like he did today then more power to his elbow! Much appreciated! Ewen 13:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after the Afd's, I have to admit it's become a good little article. Figured I may as well help make it a great little article! The preceding comment contained scenes of a violent or sexual nature, and should not have been viewed by young children. L.J.Skinner_{something to say?} 14:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fully concede the points made above. And LJS is a Unitedite too (presumably - I don't know how we could establish this 100%). Rag week is the next potentially good article. roundhouse 17:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably? You are, indeed correct. 100% Blade! The preceding comment contained scenes of a violent or sexual nature, and should not have been viewed by young children. L.J.Skinner_WOT? 18:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Blades were always, in my experience, more willing to help Rag than the other lot. What were they called again? Ewen 18:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Film Unit

Lewis,

Thanks for the article about Film Unit. I remember them from 1987-1991 when their office was next to the Rag Ofis (sic) in the Graves building. Are they still there? I recall that many members were refugees from the LGB society which was a worthy group but seemed to lack a sense of humour. This explained why Film Unit chose Wednesday evening films such as ‘Prick Up Your Ears’ etc etc. If the cinema has not been decorated since that era, you can still find my name written on the ceiling. They had little time for the Pearl & Dean adverts that they were forced to show: Some were vandalised with hand-drawn animations and others were subverted by members of the audience joining in the theme music, etc. They always managed to secure the Rocky Horror Picture Show and the Blues Brothers for Rag’s charity film-a-thons too. Happy memories of a good bunch.

I see that the article was deleted and you have restored it. If it’s up for VfD again I’ll vote for keep.

Ewen

Wow... Old data. The old Cinema has been redecorated several times, and is now essentially the Interval cafe! Film Unit now work out of a purose-built 400-seat auditorium, which I believe has been around for 10 years in September. The office is still on the finance corridor, the same corridor as RAG SUTCo, Steel Press etc. Now more professional, actually showing the adverts, and still with a sense of humour. Most were members of the now-defunkt USIT, sharing a server and hence the frequent emails from ex-USITers, asking for their stuff back! Many past and current members are also in TSC. L.J.Skinner_{something to say?} 16:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That makes me feel old! The old offices for Rag and Film Unit were in the Graves building, first floor, looking out towards the concourse (left-ish) and the Hicks building (to the right). They moved the Rag Ofis when I was there, (and several times since I believe). Ewen 17:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the finance corridor links the Graves Building to the new section. L.J.Skinner_{something to say?} 17:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to come and have a look. Good to hear they're thriving! Ewen 18:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheffield United F.C.

The usual method with long articles is to provide an overview on the "parent" article, rather than removing the section completely, see Wikipedia:Summary style for further details. For the history, History of Sheffield United F.C. could be created, but proceed with caution - make sure the prose is honed as much as possible and fully referenced before a split, otherwise you end having to do work twice, once for each article. Usually you can't go far wrong by nicking ideas from articles that are already featured (its what I did with Manchester City F.C. at any rate). If you want help with anything, feel free to ask on my talk page or at WikiProject Football. Oldelpaso 19:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheffield Medical School

Hey there!

Just thought you might like to check out Sheffield Medical School. Its just a start, but you seem to know a lot more about Wikipedia than me! William Flowers 00:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]