Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject England (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Nomination of Portal:Charles Dickens for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Charles Dickens is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Charles Dickens until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 02:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Bot created articles[edit]

I am currently looking at creating articles for civil parishes and lists of listed buildings with a bot, see User:Crouch, Swale/Bot tasks/Civil parishes (current) and User:Crouch, Swale/Bot tasks/Listed buildings. Feedback and suggestions welcome on the sub pages' talk pages, in particular where to get population date for the parish of less than 100. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

What exactly are you planning to do? If you're planning to go through the National Heritage List for England (and its Welsh, Scottish and NI equivalents) and bot-create a stub on every listed building, I'll immediately block the bot as a protective measure. Some UK local authorities hand out listings like pizza leaflets, and there are roughly half a million listed buildings in the UK. Many of them are notable in Wikipedia terms, but many of them are ephemera such as fences, milestones, toilets which are never going to be notable in our terms. Even if you're just planning to create full lists sorted by parish, I can't see the need; very few people have the slightest idea what parish any given location is in, and if anyone is planning to look for a list of every listed building in a given location they're much better off searching the register, which will always be up to date and which isn't going to be an unwatched page liable to vandalism and to going out of date. ‑ Iridescent 17:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
I was planning on having a list for all the buildings in a given parish in a single article like Listed buildings in Wetheral and List of listed buildings in Southend, Argyll and Bute does. Indeed most listed buildings shouldn't have separate articles but only be included in a list. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Are you planning to use the templates: EH listed building header, EH listed building row and the equivilents for Wales, Scotland & NI? This enables easier integration with the EH lsting (through the ref number) and wikicommons - enabling one click uploading during Wiki Loves Monuments etc.— Rod talk 18:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes that makes sense, the bot created articles in Category:Lists of listed buildings in Scotland use {{HS listed building row}}. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Note: Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs) has posted similar messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#Bot created articles and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland#Bot created articles. It is not clear where discussion should be held; and so these messages are against WP:MULTI. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Civil Parishes[edit]

There seems to be a user going around again determined to move village pages to the name of the civil parish that they are in? What is the current consensus on this? Last I checked we favoured village names over civil parishes, and civil parishes were generally considered non-notable? Jeni (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

We usually use the name of the village as the actual title if they have slightly different names such as Aston-on-Trent (name of village) and Aston upon Trent (name of parish) but if the parish name is an alternative name for the village then WP:NATURAL/WP:COMMONNAME might apply. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
And if the parish isn't an alternative name of the village, as is the case at Norton, Worcestershire? Jeni (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Its is isn't an alternative name then we title/disambiguate normally. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
So, why the requested move? Jeni (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Because the CP name is quite possibly an alternative name of the village. Vision of Britain has a quote that starts with "NORTON-BY-KEMPSEY, a village and a parish in Pershore district". Anyway another editor has supported it so it would probably not be appropriate to close and the alternative form of disambiguation also needs to be reviewed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Some parishes enclose two or more villages; some villages are split across two parishes. They are not synonymous. This is why {{Infobox UK place}} provides |civil_parish= for places within a parish, and |civil_parish1= with |civil_parish2= for places in more than one parish. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, for example see Woburn Sands, which straddles two counties as well as two parishes – and famously Belleek, County Fermanagh, which straddles an international boundary! Conversely there is at least one example that I know of where, due to boundary revisions, the CP does not contain the naming village: 'Woughton' in Milton Keynes was divided into Woughton (which retained the CP name but not the village) and Old Woughton (which lost the name but retained the village Woughton on the Green}.
But 'hard cases make bad law'. If there a sound case to put every CP into Wikipedia (which remains to be made before we get too bogged down in the details) then surely it is reasonable to use an automated process that will get 99% of them right and the other 1% can be fixed manually as needed – situation normal. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

2019_Cricket_World_Cup Mistake in opening ceremony section[edit]

I am currently looking at the /2019_Cricket_World_Cup wiki page and the opening ceremony section is completely snubbing two participants from Afghanistan. All-rounder Mirwais Ashraf and famous singer Ariana Sayed participated and finished 3rd. Please someone fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sulimankhail (talkcontribs) 07:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

New Albion article[edit]

Hello WikiProject England editors. I have much edited on the article, New Albion, and I believe it should be a part of WikiProject England. Never having been active with your project, I do not wish to presume to add it to your project. I do, however, suggest it for inclusion. I also do so in the hope that if you do include it, a Project editor might examine it for GA status. I nominated it for GA status several days ago, so it is a recent addition to the nominations. I do believe it is worthy of such a designation, and having looked at many of the best articles, I believe it meets standards higher than GA. Do please peruse the article. Most kind regards.Hu Nhu (talk) 23:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

User adding things that a village doesn't contain to an article[edit]

Hi all, serial disruptive user Gareth Griffith-Jones is insisting on adding a list of things that a village doesn't have in Loudwater, Hertfordshire despite not being able to reference it (of course you can't) - can anyone provide their input? Jeni (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

As Loudwater, Rickmansworth, has never had a church, nor any retail establishment such as a shop or pub, can Loudwater be described as a village when, in fact, it is a private housing estate established in the 1930s? Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 09:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
If indeed Loudwater is a "private housing estate" it may be better to explain that in the article, or if you dont want to edit the article then provide some sources on the talk page. Saying that something doesnt have something doesnt appear to be particularly helpfull. If you have some reliable sources then the article could do with the some work to resolve the difference between Loudwater House/Loudwater Farm and the "village" to make the article more coherent. Whatever you do please do not edit war but use use the talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 13:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much, MilborneOne, for your suggestions. Anyone who knows the estate, as I do significantly, would agree that there is no support for claiming it as a village.
I am beginning to feel that the other person in the room will revert any of my editing anywhere on Wikipedia—we have a history that goes back years. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
We have lots of reasons why things are not included but as long as you have a reliable source these things can be discussed on the related talk page if you have been reverted. If you need help or to get a wider view then go to the related project. MilborneOne (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 09:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Can the various editors edit warring over a phrase in this heading please STOP, or you may risk blocks. I also note that there is no discussion on the talk page of the issues brought here. That would be the first place to discuss things, and should be tried first before going to noticeboards/wikiprojects. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I believe the accusation serial disruptive user in the first paragraph is uncivil and unwarranted, and should be deleted per Wikipedia policy WP:AVOIDYOU. By the way, I have fixed the disputed content in the Loudwater article by providing references, so hopefully ending this discussion. Tony Holkham (Talk)