Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Telestylo: whilst/while

I've recently run across telestylo who seems to be on a mission to remove "whilst" from wiki: [[1]] apparently on the grounds that "whilst" is UK and "while" is US. I'm not sure I agree with that, but I do like whilst, and I don't like people US-ising articles, so please take a look. William M. Connolley 20:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC).

Please leave me alone. I've been editing the word out of articles that almost uniformly deal with U.S.-specific topics, as per WP policy. I'm pretty sure that very few, if any, will disagree that 'whilst' is a Commonwealth/British English feature that does not regularly occur in American English. This is not out of any "cultural imperialism" as Connolley has suggested elsewhere; only a bona fide effort to improve WP boldly as we are charged to do.
I believe that Connolley is trying to start a massive edit war as a way of taking out vengeance on me personally, and apparently this is not the first time that he has attempted to do such a thing—see the arbcom decisions on his related changes to climate change articles. I have only ever edited WP with good faith intent, as I believe deeply in the founding principles of this project (with "the project" being broadly construed).
So again, I ask that editors in good faith from any country please leave me alone. I am not against any of you. Telestylo 21:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
This is nonsense. Check her contribs. Since when have Germanicus, Spokeshave, French chalk and a host of others been US? This user is on some mission to rid the world of Whilst on utterly spurious grounds. William M. Connolley 22:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC).
The bizarre rant at Talk:Evangeline_Lilly, suggesting that Canadians famous in the US should have articles in US spelling, also suggests something of a pre-occupation for eliminating non-US spelling on the part of this user. Leithp (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Surely whilst is perfectly good English whatever variety you're using. Of course, people forget that what some refer to as "American" English is mostly just sloppy grammar and lazy spelling. :-) Chris talk back 00:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
The distinction is not UK/US. 'Whilst' has been deprecated in UK publications for some time, as has 'amongst'. They're simply archaisms. If I were correcting a printed publication, as once was my job, I would get rid of the 'st' variants, this is a matter of 'house style' and consistency.
Having said that, I would not wish to launch a style crusade on Wikipedia over this small issue. I would politely suggest that the usage should be consistent within any one article, however. Tarquin Binary 14:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This word makes me cringe. It reminds me of all the other archaic english words suffixed in "st" that are no longer used anyplace but the KJV Bible. Thoust and wouldst and willst and so on.
Hum. The two cases you use there are the Times and the Guardian; the Times style guide deprecates whilst:
while (not whilst)
as does the Guardian style guide:
while not whilst
Not that I want to get involved in this, but there's a difference between "is still used by" and "is deprecated". Shimgray | talk | 20:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. It is entirely correct British English to use 'whilst' or 'while' in conversation or an email or whatever - it 'is still used by' people on an everyday basis and no-one should correct them if that is their choice. My only point was that, as pointed out above by another poster, 'whilst' is deprecated (not to say, forbidden) by the majority of publications in the UK, not merely dailies - I will also cite The New Scientist, and The New Statesman here. I have never seen a publication stylesheet (and I have seen a few), that allows 'whilst' or 'amongst'.
Sloppy sub-editing at the Times and Guardian is not a good thing to cite, by the way. Try:
(Slight difference in the counts, eh?)
But ... it's merely academic in this context, it is not likely that any degree of conformance can be achieved, so I would let this fine point slide, frankly, given the greater importance of content issues. Tarquin Binary 22:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I do think that people who grep WP for unusual uses like whilst should think of something else to do. If you are doing a substantial content rewrite on an article and it doesnt read well then by all means change it, but otherwise leave it. Wikipedia does not have a house style. Whilst is only barely old fashioned and if people want to write it thats fine (hey I find some of the Brittannica 1911 articles a bit grating but the content is good). UK newspapers are very progressive in usage and are not necessarily good examples. One of my cunning plans is to encourage retired people to write for WP, they have plenty of time. Let them write whilst. You understand it right? Justinc 01:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm slightly hurt, Justin. If you read my stuff, what I've been saying is almost exactly what you just said, i.e. Let It Be, so I don't know what I've said to set this off. I was trying to moderate. And what is with this 'grep'? Tarquin Binary 02:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry sorry, was agreeing with you. Apologies. Bad day. You wasnt addressed to you despite level of indenting, was addressed to fewer colons further up. Yes let it be. Ah yes grep. See Grep#Used as a conversational verb.
Oh - OK, I should have guessed that, no worries. Was being ironic about the 'grep', though - as in: 'let's not scare off retired history lecturers, but let's nonetheless expect them to grok Unix argot'. (Yeah, it's only on the Talk page, I know.) :) Tarquin Binary 12:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I noticed this "correction" appear on the repertory article, which I have been trying to knock into shape. I find a justification of "I've been editing the word out of articles that almost uniformly deal with U.S.-specific topics" somewhat odd when applied to an article that is currently entirely about repertory as practised in the UK. The article certainly needs attention and expansion, but I was hoping for a little more than two spelling changes with no edit summary. Something about the history of touring theatre and whether the rep system exists similarly in other countries was more the sort of thing I had in mind. So I am with Tarquin Binary and Justinc here: consistency is good. And content is even better. (And this from someone who writes whilst, too!) --Telsa 09:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't know much about the subject, but my most obvious suggestion is that you need a pic - my solution to everything :) Isn't there also a connection with amateur dramatics, in that they are frequently referred to as amateur rep? Anyway, having a look on Commons, but it's not all that strong on theatre pix IIRC. If there's a London image you could use, could try to go and get it. Tarquin Binary 11:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Bit annoying - if you look here:
there is a pic of Birmingham Rep, but it's rather focused on the infamous cancellation of Bezhti, so I don't know if it's suitable. There're a few other theatres there, though. Tarquin Binary 11:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Caile Hill

User:Sunfazer has doubted the veracity of this article which is supposedly about a suburb in Wolverhampton at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. I promised to post something here about it to seek the views of UK Wikipedians. After doing a Google search for "Caile Hill" and getting 0 Google results at all for it [5], I am convinced that it is dodgy but I am keeping my word about posting it here. Capitalistroadster 18:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I have now nominated this for AfD following additional posts at the Administrators Notice Board. Capitalistroadster 18:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, I've mailed a friend of mine in Wolverhampton for a reality check. It's possible that it may be a lost urban district - we have plenty of them in East London (for example, St George's in the East or Cambridge Heath) - which might explain things. Or it may be a new one not yet generally accepted. I'd delete it if in doubt though, there doesn't seem to be much to say about the place, after all. Tarquin Binary 20:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
No, he's never heard of it, suggests it might be an old street name, but doesn't know about it either. I'd go ahead and drop it. Tarquin Binary 10:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Foosher and US Pov page moves again.

UK Wikipedians with a bit of spare energy may like to review the edits of User:Foosher, User:Foogol and User: I am quite sure that these are all sock puppets and in part are engaged in moving pages to US centric names (see for example History of Botswain and History of Cat flap). There are probably many more dodgy edits in their history. I've opened an incident on the Administrators' noticeboard but have yet to receive a response. At some point someone will probably have to go through most of their edits to undo the damage and look for any other related sock accounts. -- Solipsist 22:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Local chapter (UK)

After the meeting on 27th November, with Jimbo present, it was agreed to continue with the formation of a charity. Details can be found in several places, such as:

After several hours of consideration, the "Memorandum of Association" and "Articles of Association" were reviewed, modified and agreed. LoopZilla 20:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

London Underground stations beginning with D

I've just added photographs of London Underground stations to List of London Underground stations, and found that there are no images of any station starting with D here or on commons! Could someone visit Dagenham East, Dagenham Heathway, Debden, Deptford Bridge DLR, Devons Road DLR, and/or Dollis Hill stations and take a photograph that illustrates either something unique about the station or something about the station that typifies other similar stations. Thryduulf 16:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're allowed to say 'Dollis Hill' quite so early in the game. Not under the recently revised Knightsbridge Rules, anyway. And invoking the 'D' sequence, while not formally against the rules of the game, is considered tantamount to cheating in many circles ;) Seriously, I might manage Devon's Road or even Deptford sometime soon, quite near me, though not technically Underground stations. One of these days I might even get as far east as Dagenham, who knows? Tarquin Binary 18:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Devons Road ? No problem! Well within my patch... LoopZilla 13:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom

Hi guys, I've recently finished updating List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, with notes and key events during each PM's term in office. I've submitted it as a featured list candidate; comments would be very welcome. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

There appears to be a lot of POV in some of the later highlights e.g. Major - Global recession; ratification of the Maastricht Treaty; forced exit from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism ("Black Wednesday"); administration plagued by sex scandals and infighting. Jooler 03:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, I wasn't expecting replies here! What is POV about those events? The list is now a featured list! Talrias (t | e | c) 19:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


Need to keep an eye on this user, who is going around removing BE spelliings and adding false information about usage e.g.

Also note his first edit - [9] Jooler 03:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's a project..

David Gerard mentioned a possible project of Wikimedia UK - and that is: writing a decent-quality article for every politician in the UK. Might get us a bit of kudos or - who knows - even money. See also m:Possible projects of Wikimedia UK -- Cormaggio @ 10:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to take this opportunity to apologise for not being as involved in Wikimedia UK discussions or meetings following the enrthusiasm of my first meeting: I have been quite busy and am not very well. -- Francs2000 21:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry to hear that - I hope you get back to the best of health soon. Well, anything you can do for Wikimedia UK is great, now or in the future - currently it's at paperwork stage, hoping to be incorporated by January, possibly AGM early in the new year. See wikimediauk-l mailing list for developments/discussion, as well as m:Wikimedia UK-related pages, of course. Cormaggio @ 03:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I consider this project to be utter madness, not just in the light of recent WP events which any fule kno about, but also given British libel laws and penalties, which may come into play later. It's a crazy proposal, and WP is barely winging it as it is. Just lucky so far I guess. Tarquin Binary 09:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Bizarre comment. Jooler 10:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Not bizarre, just advice from an ex-journalist, take it as you will. Just watch your back(s), under *any* jurisdiction. In practical terms, I would advise against starting any articles about people that are still alive and some of them that ain't. It's that crude. Not my determination, I hasten to add, but it's realpolitik Tarquin Binary 11:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Huh! so we shouldn't write any articles about people who are alive then?, curious thing to say. There are only tens of thousands of those on the wikipedia already so we'll have to delete a lot of articles then. G-Man 23:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I can easily imaging it coming to that kind of mass deletion if this scofflaw naivety continues. And I'm on your side in some ways, but this is getting kind of silly. Tarquin Binary 01:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Semi-protection policy

There is a debate going on about introducing a new policy of Semi-protection. Which basically means that some articles could be protected from edits by anon users and new logged in users, but remain editable to everyone else. There's a straw poll going on at the Talk page. I just thought I'd bring this to people's attention. G-Man 23:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


The London portal has been nominated to become one of the first Wikipedia:featured portals. Please vote and make suggestions at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates. the wub "?!" 17:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The Grid, Manchester

Does this article look believable to any of our Mancunian editors? It's a very hard thing to google for, but I'm a little suspicious - it's also orphaned, so if real it may be worth moving to a better title (without the quotes) and linking it in from local pages. Shimgray | talk | 14:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I know what you mean. As far as a can tell there is a Stretford Meadows (probably this open area next to the M60) and some of the other details are correct, but a lot of the article reads like information made up by school kids who like to hang out there. Other edits by the originating IP are good though. -- Solipsist 12:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
The problem here is that deleted edits by that IP aren't shown. Checking with Kate's Tools, I find that (talk · contribs) has two deleted edits, both from the same time as the Grid article was created - nothing remarkable, just a nn-bio speedy deletion, but it sours me a little. Shimgray | talk | 14:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism and POV etc watch

Tiring of the constant POV issues with Cornwall (some people refuse to acknowledge that Wikipedia has to present the world as it is, not how they'd like it to be), I was thinking, do we need to make a Wikipedia:UK Wikipedian's notice board/Vandalism in progress page to list oft vandalised pages to keep an eye on the "related changes" link? Joe D (t) 00:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

If you're "tiring of constant POV issues", you should perhaps sit back and wonder why you're constantly having them, instead of trying to pass off your own POV agenda on Wikipedia as objectivity. Some of us have no problem with Wikipedia presenting the world as it is (although your own interest in a "South West England" model seems to be interfering with how you view the world). That isn't the issue here. The issue is finding a form of words that represents the truth and isn't offensive to people, in line with Wikipedia practice in other disputed or contested territories. Doire 17:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


I see Category:Skyscrapers in London is the new Category:Tall buildings in London. Skyscraper is to me an emotional term related to 1930s America, while "tall building" is a more correct encyclopaedic term. Where was the discussion for changing it? Presumably all tall buildings in the world are now skyscrapers? Notre Dame? Justinc 01:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Skyscraper is a perfectly encyclopediac term; it's no longer slang at all. If anything, it's "tall building" which might sound amateur. However, I take your point about overspecificity with "skyscraper"; while I don't think 1930s New York is necessarily implied, surely a tall many-floored more-or-less boxlike structure is. I don't think St. Paul's Cathedral, e.g., fits most people's definition of a "skyscraper." Doops | talk 02:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Another possiblity is Hi-rise. It has the benifit of a strict definition by Emporis that could be used in "that's not a Hi-rise" arguments. josh (talk) 02:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Whatever emporis says (and it seems to be down now), I think hi-rise, in addition to containing the lamentable execrable soul-destroying "hi", is just as specific as "skyscraper" -- nobody would call St. Paul's a hi-rise (or even a high-rise). Doops | talk 05:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually it seems more complex. St Pauls has not bene moved, skyscrapers in London is a subcat of tall bioldings which says it should be moved to Category:Tall buildings and structures in London but is in itself a subcat of Category:Sktscrapers in Europe. Trellick Tower and the Shell Centre do not fall under the definition of Skyscraper in that article (153m) but are Highrises (35m according to the Emporis Data Committee whoever they might be). But even the skyscraper article defines skyscraper as "somewhat arbitrary" and highrise as "slightly less arbitrary". Do we want to classify them as per these definitions? Justinc 11:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Doops | talk --Chazz88 09:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

2006 honours list

The 2006 honours list is here (pdf). I see folks have been busy already adding honours info, but I think it's worth y'all glancing through the list (or the BBC's filtered versions of it) to see if there's anyone you think is notable enough to have an article, but for whom we don't have one yet. Doing the Scottish ones (what, me parochial?) I found:

Question: should we have a 2006 honours list article? Or a wikipedia:UK Wikipedians' notice board/2006 honours list instead? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

As a scratchpad, I'm keeping User:Finlay McWalter/2006 honours list as a list of this stuff. Feel free to edit as necessary. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Everyone who has an article on that list has their honour mentioned. I think an article would be interesting for each year if we could pull it off. Secretlondon 21:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Not sure about that. Each list has nearly 1400 names, and even then they don't cover all the medals and decorations made during the course of a year. An article on each list... would just be a list (pretty much anything else would be speculative and/or POV) and would have a huge number of red links (~97%). Those who merit an article of their own will have the award mentioned anyway. So IMHO it would be superfluous and simply a copy of published lists available on the London Gazette website. Wiki-Ed 12:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
An article on each year wouldn't contain the entire list and would contain references to how the list was perceived - populist? etc. It would be on the list, not a copy of it. Secretlondon 02:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It exists at New Year Honours 2006. User:Noisy | Talk 12:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh my... I think my 97% red link estimate was too low. I am sure there are better things for people to work on. Wiki-Ed 10:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It might be an idea to create 2006 honours list as a pointer to the New Year Honours 2006, the Queen's Birthday Honours 2006, etc. If any other countries award honours like the UK does it could inclde them - effectively a List of lists of honours given in 2006. The smae for other years as well. Thryduulf 12:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe there are 2006 Australian honours; if so, they certainly aren't on the same government list. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I intended it to be for all Commonwealth Realms (note that Belize, Grenada, etc. are also in the list); adding the Australian honours would be part of the process, yes.
I need to come up with a regex to do it, though; then I intend to do the 2005 list, too. I have to say, this is the most editing, and the most fun I've had, in ages.
James F. (talk) 12:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Isaac Shoenberg

I've started this article as per the original request on the board and will finish it later. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 12:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Independent school (UK)

I left a note on the article's talk page about this a while back and didn't get much of a response and as I'm new to this I thought it might be an idea to ask here.

Basically, I think that the table of the English Public school slang looks rubbish with some of the schools linked and others not. I'm guessing that this is detirmined by weather the school has been previously mentioned in the article. I'm aware of the policy to this effect but I was wondering if this would be an occasion to ignore it and link every school in the list. I also think that this will make it easier if you see an interesting but of slang and want to look at the school. At the moment you have to search through the artice for the link. Comments appreciated RicDod 20:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I would link every school in the list. Be bold! It would also make it look better too! -- Francs2000 01:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Really big scanner?

Does anyone have access to an oversize scanner - A3 at the very least, preferably A2 or even A1? I have a number of copyright-free maps that I'd like to scan, but several are printed on odd-sized pieces of paper that are up to A1 in size. -- ChrisO 20:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried a main library? Joe D (t) 22:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
You might be better off scanning in parts and using some software to join them. Or using a camera with a good copying lens. I dont think that really big scanners are very common. Justinc 01:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Home Nations

I would appreciate if some contributors would like to help clarify matters and decide article content/fact presentation at Home Nations. See Talk:Home Nations and the article history to see the disputed content.

Further content and more accurate facts are probably also useful to bring into the debate.

This note has also been left at Wikipedia talk:Irish Wikipedians' notice board.

zoney talk 22:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Birmingham meetup

What are you doing on Saturday 21 January? Meet other Wikipedians at the Birmingham meetup. The meet starts at midday. Final discussion on the venue and any planned activities for the meetup is under way, so join in and come along! Warofdreams talk 11:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping to make this one, especially seeing as I missed the last two, but I've been called into work that day. Sorry to miss you all, have fun! -- Francs2000 12:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

River Plate or Rio de La Plata

A few days ago User:TShilo12 moved the page from River Plate to Río de la Plata and then went around chaging all references from River Plate to Río de la Plata on pages such as the Battle of the River Plate ([10]) and War of the Triple Alliance ([11]) and hundreds of other articles where "River Plate" is used in context as the English name of the River. See Talk:Río de la Plata Jooler 20:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I've only ever seen it called Río de la Plata to be honest. Secretlondon 20:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd have to say the exact opposite, isn't the Battle of the River Plate quite well attested in English?adamsan 21:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
There is now a vote in progress on this issue. Jooler 13:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
The first WP:RM vote was tied; since the vote was being held at Río de la Plata, the page stayed there. There is now a new vote to decide this once and for all. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It may be worth pointing out that the vote at Talk:Río de la Plata is about half way through and is running at about 3:1 for Río de la Plata rather than River Plate. A name that has been used in English for this river since Sir Francis Drake may be end up being subordinated to the Spanish, notwithstandong the historical resonance of the Battle of the River Plate (the first major naval battle of World War II and a propaganda coup for the British) and the 1956 film of the battle, The Battle of the River Plate. Vote now and vote often (well, once at least), or lose your cultural heritage. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

London meetup

A London meetup has been organised for tomorrow. As I never look at meta either ;) details posted here - 2pm (14:00 UTC) on Sunday, 15th January, 2006, The Royal Oak, 44, Tabard St, London, SE1 4JU. See m:Wikimedia UK for more details. Secretlondon 17:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Will you be there, Secretlondon? -- Francs2000 22:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I'll try to be. Secretlondon 22:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Well that's a reason to try and get there, as long as the Chiltern Line isn't down again! -- Francs2000 22:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
If the light is okay Borough is rather nice to take photos of. I should try and compile a list of stuff we need really.. Secretlondon 22:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I might have to mug you for your camera - I'm getting the third degree from Giano for not completing a photography project I started with him some months ago, because my camera's broken! -- Francs2000 22:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I only just saw this. Will try to make it - might be late though... Justinc 12:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I totally failed to make it. Sorry all. Secretlondon 22:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Me too - I'm actually feeling quite unwell today. -- Francs2000 22:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I didnt either... Justinc 01:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Morwen/Marriage in the United Kingdom

Hi. I'm working on a draft article about marriage in the United Kingdom. Please add stuff to, and once its reasonably complete we can move it to the article namespace. Morwen - Talk 09:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Not really any expertise here, but looks quite good. Missing a section on the peculiarities of marriage for the royal family though. Justinc 12:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Peculiarities? -- Francs2000 12:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Ie the way they can't marry without permission. Good job everyone. Also started a Prostitution in the United Kingdom article. Morwen - Talk 16:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh that. For a minute there I thought you were linking the prostitution article with Royal marriages. I'm sure a link can be made somewhere... -- Francs2000 12:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

What is the correct name of the UK's Olympic team

Is the UK's Olympic team "Great Britain" or "Great Britain and Northern Ireland"?

see Cfd discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Great_Britain_at_the_Olympics_to_Category:Great_Britain_and_Northern_Ireland_at_the_Olympics --Mais oui! 22:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


Hello. I was wondering if y'all could replace Image:Uk flag large.png with Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg. My bot, Zbot370, did most of the changes, but many of the pages that need to be edit are screwing up the script, due to article protection. The pages that need to be edited should be small, and the talk pages can be left alone, since I know some of yall used the Union Jack in your sigs, like Francs. Thanks. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 01:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Heinz Wolf(f)

There's a request for an article on Heinz Wolf in the tasks box, but if the 'Great Egg Race' guy is meant, he already has a page at Heinz Wolff. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 03:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

clean up request on Chew Valley Lake

A clean up request has been put on the Chew Valley Lake page in Somerset on which I've done a fair amount of work, suggesting, rightly, that it sounded too much like a tourist brochure. I've done various edits trying to remove "peacock terms" (I'm learning a new language doing this) & hope the page now complies with style guides etc

I don't feel confident enough to remove the clean up tag until someone else (more experienced) takes a look & feels it is OK to remove it, as I'm not sure of the etiquette - would any of you be willing to cast an eye over it? Rod 20:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)