User talk:Scribble Monkey/Archive 1

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


Hello, Scribble Monkey, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Roleplayer 13:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Specialist school categories

Dahliarose, I have proposed that categories Humanities colleges in England and Maths and computing colleges in England be renamed to Humanities Colleges in England and Mathematics & Computing Colleges in England respectively. I have suggested this so that they are consistent with the other categories within Category:Specialist schools in England, and with the format used by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) at their Standards website. The other England specialism categories superseded, or are superseding, categories for Buckinghamshire schools, which also followed the suggested format. It is also consistent with the specialism pages, e.g. Mathematics and Computing College. Hopefully, as the creator of these categories, you will agree with this proposal, but of course you can register your opinion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. ~ Scribble Monkey 17:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It does make sense to rename these categories for consistency. I should have checked the format for the other categories first before going ahead and creating the pages! I did in fact name the page Mathematics and Computing College, rather than Mathematics & Computing College. I know the DFES use an ampersand but I thought it looked a little strange to have an ampersand in a title. I might argue for the retention of the "and", though I think whatever is decided consistency is the most important issue. Are you going ahead and suggesting that the Buckinghamshire specialist categories be deleted? I don't think there are enough specialist schools in each county to justify separate county headings.Dahliarose 17:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that you're happy with that. I take your point about the ampersand, though I felt that anything that reduced the name by a couple of characters was probably a good thing. The Buckinghamshire categories are being slowly deleted; in fact it looks like another few just went and we're now down to Sports Colleges and Science Colleges. ~ Scribble Monkey 17:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The Buckinghamshire categories have all gone and their contents have all been placed within England categories. ~ Scribble Monkey 01:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help sorting out these categories. I hadn't realised I was creating so many problems! At least once the category re-naming goes through they will all follow a consistent format. I had noticed that the Buckinghamshire categories had now all gone. I shall have a go at adding a few schools to the new categories once the renaming has been done. I did wonder if there should be a list of specialist schools by county or by education authority. Dahliarose 11:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The DfES Standards website has lists by specialism and LEA, so it would be quite easy to put together lists in Wikipedia. ~ Scribble Monkey 09:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if specialist schools might be best listed by county rather than education authority. I wouldn't like to start something off and do it in the wrong way. All the Berkshire schools, for example, are categorised by county Category:Schools in Berkshire but the List of schools in England is sorted by region and then by education authority. The boundaries for education authorities can sometimes be quite arbitrary and people might not know where to look for a particular school. What do you think? Dahliarose 11:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about starting something off and doing it in the wrong way, be bold. Try it by county and we'll see if it works. London might have to be done slightly differently, but that would be ok. ~ Scribble Monkey 12:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


I'm pleased to see that you've contributed to the school naming debate. I'm not going to be able to do much for the next few weeks. I think this whole parenthesis business has been agreed on very little consensus. It's very much do as you please across Wikipedia with all buildings and place names. If given a vote I think I might opt for commas. UK churches already use commas. I wonder if you might be able to raise the subject with WikiProject England in my absence? Dahliarose 16:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia appears to be bedevilled with this sort of nonsense. Personally, I think as long as it's not ambiguous it doesn't matter if it's consistent. People seemingly managed to cope with Colchester Royal Grammar School and Royal Grammar School Worcester long before Wiki enforced a uniform naming convention. I will see what I can do, but I tend to think that there will be more important battles that we should save ourselves for. ~ Scribble Monkey 22:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Buckinghamshire Schools

It is a shame that you did not discuss your proposed changes to Buckinghamshire schools before applying them. The term secondary modern is never used in Buckinghamshire and if the schools needed to be grouped in the template, they could just as easily have been grouped by district. I am seriously considering undoing your changes. ~ Scribble Monkey 09:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies, I was going through all the educational navboxes and changing them to the 'generic navbox' template. The other templates all had the schools grouped into types and the Buckinghamshire system completely baffled me at first. When I looked on the DfES website it listed the schools as being of Secondary Modern in type so I grouped them in that category. There was no active discussion on the Buckinghamshire template page itself so I didn't think it'd cause a problem. I didn't intend for my edit to cause any offence and am sorry if it did. CR7 13:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. In Buckinghamshire the term "secondary modern" doesn't seem to be used any more; probably because it appears old fashioned and has negative connotations. Bucks County Council call them "Upper schools" and this is reflected in the names of some of the schools. The school websites also tend to use "upper school", or just refer to themselves as secondary schools. My personal preference, if we want to group them in this way, would be to use "Non-selective", because "Upper schools" may not mean anything to people outside Bucks. However, assuming there may be a discussion to standardise the templates, it's probably best to leave things as they are at the moment. ~ Scribble Monkey 14:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I considered grouping them under 'Upper School' but some of them don't fit the pattern very well. The system itself seems a little bit odd but maybe that's just my view from the outside. Thanks, CR7 14:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox UK school

Name of template - I couldn't reply to your question, on Template talk:Infobox UK school, as to whether the Infobox GB school template and talk page should be deleted, because the talk page has been replaced as per your request, thus removing your question.

Personally, I think that Template:Infobox GB school and Template talk:Infobox GB school should be deleted, to avoid editors accidentally linking to them, and therefore going through a redirect. I would have thought that the risk of an editor recreating the template is minimal. ~ Scribble Monkey 14:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think removing it to avoid accidental linkage is a good idea too. How should this be gone about? Speedy deletion or templates for deletion? CR7 (message me) 14:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I would have though a request for speedy deletion would be best. We had sufficient consensus to rename the template, and the longer the old template remains, the greater the chance of someone inadvertently linking to it. ~ Scribble Monkey 14:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Which template do you think describes it best? Personally, I think I'd choose db-histmerge - History merge; but I'm not sure it's the right one. CR7 (message me) 15:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think db-histmerge is fine, but if you don't think it's a good enough fit then db-reason with a reason like "redundant redirect template" should be ok. ~ Scribble Monkey 16:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Please comment [[1]]. Thanks, CR7 (message me) 23:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have added my support to your request for deletion. Let's hope this does it. ~ Scribble Monkey 00:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I've declined deleting this since there really isn't anything wrong with the redirect (and it has incoming links). I'd recommend taking this to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. --- RockMFR 19:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Speen, Buckinghamshire

Could you please refrain from removing information about this subject? Thanks a lot. HoOhMajor 12:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thing is though, I added trivia - the name IS in fact hilarious. You, for no good reason removed information which may make someone's day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HoOhMajor (talkcontribs) 12:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


Hi - I see you have recently created one or more new stub types. As it states at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of most stub categories, and in many other places on Wikipedia, it is recommended that new stub types are proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it is otherwise correctly formatted, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, and whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies. Your new stub type is currently listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments there as to any rationale for this stub type. And please, in future, consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 22:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:NC(S) input

Hello, as you might have noticed I have brought up a new proposal for a guideline on school naming conventions. However, there has been very little input for it to go anywhere. I remember you were involved in the last proposal, so I would appreciate your input once again at WT:NC(S) if possible. Thanks. Camaron1 | Chris 11:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Waddesdon cofe logo.jpg)

Nuvola apps important blue.svg Thanks for uploading Image:Waddesdon cofe logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

South Chadderton School

I reverted again and cited applicable policies on the talk page. If you disagree, please write me an email and I'll be glad to discuss this with you and other people. Not being British, I do not know much about the tabloid "People" but from having a look at its website and a quick glance at the Wikipedia article, I do not think that it is a reputable source in the sense of "known for fact-checking". Yours, --Mbimmler (talk) 17:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have replied on the article's talk page, as other users have also contributed to the discussion. ~ Scribble Monkey (talk) 09:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:BicesterCommunityCollege.png

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:BicesterCommunityCollege.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 12:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Aylesbury Junior Schools

Hi, I see you're doing a fine job of merging all the little schools into their respective locality articles. So that the Aylesbury article doesn't get chockablock with schools information, I have taken the liberty of adding a suggestion as to where the merge should be to on each junior and infant school article that comes under Category:Aylesbury. One or two will require me to create an article for their locality in the first place, but this isn't too bad as there is other information that can be included in with those. -- Roleplayer (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions and for creating the missing articles. ~ Scribble Monkey (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not sure if it's correct to add a comment to your archive, but it seemed sensible to keep this discussion together. Would it be possible for you to create stubs for the missing Elm Farm and Prebendal Farm articles, so that the two remaining Aylesbury primary school articles can be merged into them, allowing the category to be deleted? ~ Scribble Monkey (talk) 11:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot! -- Roleplayer (talk) 12:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I did that, and one of them was almost instantaneously proposed for deletion. I suppose you can't please everybody! -- Roleplayer (talk) 13:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

So I see. Any suggestions? ~ Scribble Monkey (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I have tried looking online for references for the estate, but am finding nothing. It'll mean a trip to the Record Office to find some references there, something that I can't do today. -- Roleplayer (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok. If the article gets deleted the school can be redirected to the Aylesbury page, even if the text isn't merged in. Hopefully though, it won't come to that ~ Scribble Monkey (talk) 14:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Primary Schools

I notice that you have been doing assessments of some Buckinghamshire primary school articles. I thought I ought to point out that most of these articles are now redirect pages to their locality page. ~ Scribble Monkey (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Did i miss one, ive speedied alot of talk pages of deleted articles. Thanks for the note. Which ones btw. Twenty Years 16:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

One of the ones I noticed was High Ash Church of England Combined School, which you tagged a day after I merged its content and changed it to a redirect. I think it would be best to leave the redirects in place, if only to prevent the pages being recreated. However, I thought I ought to mention it as I didn't want you waste time creating an assessment for an article that was now a couple of lines in another article. ~ Scribble Monkey (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for that. Many thanks. Twenty Years 16:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Stone Church of England Combined School

I am sorry that you were not happy with me merging the information from this article and redirecting the page to the Stone, Buckinghamshire article. As you can see I have previously edited this article and those of other Buckinghamshire primary schools. However, I have come to the conclusion that there are insufficient editors prepared to maintain this material and that it is better to merge primary school information into their relevant locality articles. If you would like to discuss this please post on the school article or on my talk page. ~ Scribble Monkey (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned in my revert comment that I saw insufficient attempts at merging the information in the school topic into the village topic. If all the information was merged from the school into the village topic, I would be perfectly happy with the deletion.
I don't like to see factual and useful information simply be deleted. Your "merge" adds only 32 words to the Stone village article. The information in the school topic is much more substantial than 32 words. Rbirkby (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The material that was omitted is present word for word on the school website. I know we touched on the copyright status of the material before on the article's talk page, and that we were happy to leave it on the school's article. I was not as sure that we should replicate the text on the village article though. The fact that the material is all available through the school link means that nothing is lost, but a rewrite would be even better. What do you think? ~ Scribble Monkey (talk) 08:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't dmoz (the open directory project). i.e. It's not just a collection of external links. It's an encyclopedia, citing authoritative sources. Rbirkby (talk) 09:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand that, but the content is a copy/paste from the school website, which carries a copyright notice. Surely that is the issue. ~ Scribble Monkey (talk) 09:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The history shows that you deleted all the supposed copyright-infringing content, then reverted your deletion. Nevertheless, there are several facts which should be included in the village page if you were to merge the school topic in. For example, current headteacher, former headteacher, date of change of head and links to the Ofsted and DfES reports. Rbirkby (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

As previously mentioned, we had touched on the copyright status of some of the material before. Might I suggest that you make the changes, which you believe are required, to the Stone article and change the school article to redirect to it. ~ Scribble Monkey (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No. You're the one that wants to perform the merge. I invested time and energy into adding these facts into the original topic. It's not fun to have someone else come along, delete your factual content, then insist you re-enter them into a different topic. Rbirkby (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Please yourself. Thanks for all your help on this one. ~ Scribble Monkey (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Horwood House

Thanks for all the edits of Horwood House and of course you were correct with widow instead of window. Have you any connection with Horwood Hosue at all as I would really like to find out what happened to the Denny familiy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deben Dave (talk) 09:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome; you've done a really good job with this article and I'm just happy to help with some tidying. I'm afraid I have no connection with Horwood House or knowledge of what became of the Denny family. ~ Scribble Monkey (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh well thanks all the same. Would you mind casting your expert eye over the associated site which I am still modifying? It is Percy_Thrower...Thanks (talk) 12:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I can certainly do that. ~ Scribble Monkey (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much Deben Dave (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the reference section on Percy and when you edit it all the information is not there but a reflist. How does that work do you know Deben Dave (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Percy Thrower

Thanks for the edits of the references much appreciated. I have been to several pages where there are loads of refernces and yet when you go to edit they are not there just a reflist or something like that. How does that work or is it just my age? Deben Dave (talk) 11:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dave, the inline references (or footnotes) are added by using the <ref></ref> tags at the appropriate place in the article. The References section then contains a {{Reflist}} or <references/> tag which automatically displays the references. There is a brief explanation here or a slightly longer one here. Let me know if you need any further help. ~ Scribble Monkey (talk) 12:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Prebendal Farm, Aylesbury

Well done for diggin up the bit on Fowler, I always wondered whom Fowler Road was named after. -- Roleplayer (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. ~ Scribble Monkey (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

School knowledge

I take it due to your knowledge of buckinghamshire and Princes Risborough School, you are a member of it? thanks, ~Beegee7730 (talk) 13:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

  • No, I don't have any connection with the school. I found the house names on the school's website. ~ Scribble Monkey (talk) 14:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Aylesbury Population

Hi, I noticed that you changed the Aylesbury population figure, from 65,173 to 69,021. The article mentions that the figure is taken from the 2001 census, but the figure provided at Neighbourhood Statistics is 56,392. I am confused as to where the original figure and your correction are sourced from. - Scribble Monkey (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I took the population from the Office for National Statistics [2], which displays the population according to the 2001 census. Aylesbury is about halfway down. The figure there is 69,021. Mpvide65 (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, it looks like that figure is for the Aylesbury urban area, which includes Bierton and Stoke Mandeville. Bucks CC. Would it be worth clarifying that in the article, as the article currently states that those areas are not part of Aylesbury? - Scribble Monkey (talk) 08:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey. I actually thought it was the population for Aylesury alone. However it would be wise to mention 69,021 as the Aylesbury Urban Area population and maybe incude the population for Aylesbury alone. Mpvide65 (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:BHBS.gif)

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading Image:BHBS.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 13:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Peter Losasso

Just a friendly note on Peter Losasso. No problem with removing the prod, but I still don't think he's notable, so I took to AfD. Feel free to weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Losasso if you think it should be kept. Cheers!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I have no problem with the article on Peter Losasso being nominated for deletion. I corrected the spelling and moved the page and then ran the correct spelling through Google. This received more hits than the speedy delete justification mentioned, so I thought it best to remove it rather than try to amend it. - Scribble Monkey (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)