User talk:Severo/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Milton Keynes Project
can i direct you to the talk page on the project for a suggestion? Simply south (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- I am just thinking that there is no point in replacing all of the WikiProject Milton Keynes templates as they will show the new template anyway. Simply south (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Whatevers best. And don't worry about the articles seeming to be still stuck in the Milton Keynes categories, it will take a while but i think they will eventually be found in the Buckinghamshire categories, it is just a lag. Simply south (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure you'll just love this suggestion at this stage but what about "Importance" of an article. Though who decides? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not a fan of importance criteria, as you mention, it's too subjective. However, I think there's room for identifying core articles. Importance can of course be included, it's not difficult, just in my opinion a bit pointless! SeveroTC 17:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Israel Cycling Federation
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Israel Cycling Federation, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Israel Cycling Federation. Rockfang (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi you have just add a tag to Cholesbury giving it a rating of Start Class which is defined by the project as "short, lacks details, key facts, illustration, etc". Given this article as been written using the template guidelines, is not short, does not lack details, or key facts or illustrations etc and has been well referenced I would appreciate what would need to be done to it to rate it B Class. The assessment took less than 20 seconds so the article was not read. Please could you explain your assessment, thanksTmol42 (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you tagged the above article with a WikiProject Buckinghamshire template [1]. Adding this article to any WikiProject is welcome especially if it means it will be improved. However I wonder if you're aware that, although strongly associated with Bletchley Park during the Second World War, the Wireless Experimental Centre was based outside Delhi, India. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 11:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- I was going to check them all during assessment: I think this may apply to some of the other articles in Category:Bletchley Park, which I hadn't foreseen when including the category. I'll assess the articles in that category in the next 24 hours or so. SeveroTC 12:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
your comment at SFD
Sorry, I don't know how I managed to delete your comment at SFD. Purely inadvertent, at any rate. My apologies. Alai (talk) 03:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
MK Dons
What needs to happen to the MK Dons article to get it beyond Start class? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- I was applying previously given assessments across WP:Bucks, but wasn't paying attention as to whether they were right. Having had a look, it seems a clear B class article to me so I've updated the class marks to reflect this. SeveroTC 22:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Article Assessment
Just popping over to say thanks for your time on assessing the two articles on villages in Buckinghamshire. The advice and pointers on style and content were very useful too, cheers! Tmol42 (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The Reunion
Hi, coud you tell me if you uploaded The Reunion file on Bletchley Park to mediafire youself? If so, I'd be interested to know how did you did it. Richerman (talk) 11:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The "Palmarès" section of the article needs wikifying. Can you please change the format of the section. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- First, this is a wiki, which means we all chip in and appreciate everyone's efforts because they are just trying to build a better encyclopaedia. I wonder, as your first comment to me is a criticism, if you assume good faith. I hope you do. Second, you're wrong because there isn't an established "wikified" style, and is broadly in line with Wikipedia:WikiProject Cycling/Standard cyclist biography (although that is a) still under construction, and; b) written with road racing cyclists in mind). SeveroTC 17:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Actually the section is divided into two columns, I am confused for that reason. I thought it should be within a single column. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- As per Wikipedia:WikiProject Cycling/Standard cyclist biography. I personally don't think it matters if it's one column or two. It's not something I'm going to change. SeveroTC 17:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Actually the section is divided into two columns, I am confused for that reason. I thought it should be within a single column. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
New Project
Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.
If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Good Faith
What do you mean? Assume good faith?!?!?!?! Britishrailclass91 (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- As per RFBailey at Talk:Chiltern Railways. SeveroTC 20:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
New sock
Did you just get some off-wiki canvassing from NewBlock (talk · contribs) as I did? Ignore: it's the latest of many socks of an indefinitely banned user: see block log. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Joseph M. Papp
Are you monitoring Joseph M. Papp page for possible vandalism in light of heightened, controversial public profile of subject resulting from latest press attention?Azx2 (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have around 8,000 pages on my watchlist, of which around 4,500 to 5,000 are cycling articles. I can't add significantly to them all, but I try to keep an eye for vandalism and obviously Papp has received a lot of attention lately so I wouldn't be surprised if his article was vandalised. So yeh, he's mostly on my watchlist to monitor vandalism. SeveroTC 15:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, that is good to know. I have spoken with Joseph M. Papp to clarify information and tried to improve the neutrality of the his entry's content based on the factual details he provides. Should a link to the Outside Magazine article be included in his page? It is the most controversial yet.Azx2 (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with this magazine. Does it fulfil the criteria of being a reliable third-party source? If so, there's no particular reason not to include it. An NPOV stance does, however, demand that it isn't given undue weight, so it may only warrant a "mention". SeveroTC 16:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Outside Magazine has circulation of some 600,000. Regardless, a user from this IP 216.254.83.50 continues to make changes to the Papp article that are not based in fact but rather seem to seek to demean the subject of the article or otherwise reflect a personal bias. Please check the edit history.Azx2 (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Re: Talk page protection
I've semi-protected your talk page for 3 days. If you require a longer period or if you wish to suspend protection, please make a request at WP:RPP. Cheers, ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
French Chalk
Thanks. That's good enough for me. At least I now know it isn't just a hoax. I've updated the article to make French chalk optional. -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I've gotten some pushback, and upon further search, I can find no mention of any patch kit containing chalk anywhere. The few mentions of chalk I can find refer to using it to mark the hole. Can you find a link that can be used as a reference? -AndrewDressel (talk) 01:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Cyclist
I dont think you're last change to Template:Infobox Cyclist worked... Something funny going on there. I also wasn't keen on making the caption an alt text only (if this is what you were trying to do!) - as it's not really compatible with images which need the author attributing. Thaf (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Each infobox instance needs the field changed slightly, which I'm doing now with AWB. With the alt-text, it's the lesser of two evils. SeveroTC 15:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
RL infobox
|
Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar | |
| Many thanks for the valuable feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes. The contribution may lead to the widespread implementation of a new infobox that supercedes the current standard. Thankyou for taking the time to read through the discussion and offering a way forwards.Londo06 09:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC) |
You say that:
- 'There's still a fair bit of unencyclopaedic stuff in here'
What do you mean? It looks fine to me. Mpvide65 (talk) 22:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed there are several stub types in this wiki. Why the stubs are so classified like politician of x country? DoyUti (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not 100% sure what you're asking. I'll do my best to explain but if I've answered the wrong question just let me know. The overall {{politician-stub}} has been divided into separate countries over time because of the amount of stubs of this type. Nearly every country has a specific stub template for the politicians of that particular country. In the above example, however, you will notice that the template does not have it's own category - each template only gets this when the category is big enough (which in practical terms means 60 articles). Having templates like {{foo-politician-stub}} also prevents the article from having many stub tags. For example, a politician from France just has {{france-politician-stub}} rather than {{france-bio-stub}} and {{politician-stub}}. Does this explain it? If you would like to learn more about the way stubs are classified in general, you can look at Wikipedia:Stub or the WikiProject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting. Happy days. SeveroTC 21:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
"don't fix redirects that arent broke"
Que? What's wrong with linking directly to an article when you can? Nosleep (talk) 03:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- WP:REDIRECT#NOTBROKEN. SeveroTC 08:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Well I simply don't agree with that. Nosleep (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Then it would be wise to take that up on the relevant talk page. I don't agree with lots of things; doesn't mean I break consensus. I think the guideline illustrated in the above link is pretty non-controversial and there is no reason, certainly none you have identified, as to why it should not be followed. SeveroTC 16:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Severo, I've come over from WP:BUCKS because it's a bit quiet and cobwebby over there. I've just created an assessment scale using the standard grades and an adopted level of importance according to what WP:Somerset do. Before I fire away and start assessing articles according to this scale, can you take a look and give me some feedback on the importance ratings? Cheers. -- roleplayer 12:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not keen on importance criteria because it's all a bit subjective, but for my money, Buckinghamshire, Aylesbury, Buckingham, Milton Keynes and High Wycombe are the top priorities, the articles of Foo in Buckinghamshire are less important. But, I don't really have strong preference. Cheers, SeveroTC 13:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
. . . so i hope you are going to fix my article on Arielle Martin (offshoot of my interest in the Jill Kintner piece . . . ) . . . i went ahead and finished it . . . sorta inspiring . . . maybe more human interest than some other stories