Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hampshire/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1

Hampshire county

Hello, good luck with the project! Just thought the project ought to point out it is based on the county of Hampshire, UK, and not Hampshire County, Massachusetts! I'm also from the former, but why not collaborate with any would be US Hampshire Hogs :) LeeVJ (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've adjusted the intro accordingly. waggers (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Woolmer

I begun the article on Woolmer, describing it as a 'village'. Is this strictly accurate? What is its connection to the military? Anypone who knows the place please do look over the stub Grunners (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

info box

is there one for this project yet? Grunners (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming you mean userbox rather than infobox - there isn't one that's been created especially, but I suggest you use {{Participant|Hampshire}} which gives:
Wikipedia-logo-v2.svg This user is a participant in WikiProject Hampshire.
If you do mean infobox, then it will depend on the article in question - rivers will use {{Infobox River}}, hospitals {{Infobox Hospital}}, places {{Infobox UK place}}, etc. - there's no need for anything Hampshire-specific. waggers (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Userbox, yes, sorry my mistake! =) Grunners (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I've just created a new one especially for the project: {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Hampshire/userbox}} - which gives:
Hampshire outline map with UK.png This user is a member of WikiProject Hampshire.
. Hope you like it! waggers (talk) 09:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Importance Criteria

It seems to me that we need to work out an Importance Criteria to rate articles.

General Guidelines: The importance of articles is a more local criterion. It mirrors the project-wide importance scheme, but in relation to a publication purely about Hampshire as opposed to a general encyclopaedia. For example, articles on Hampshire's subdivisions and prinicpal settlements might not appear as stand-alone entries in a general print encyclopaedia but would be essential inclusions in an encyclopaedia of Hampshire.

Need: A measure of a subject's importance, regardless of its quality
Top Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia.
High Subject is exceptionally important.
Mid Subject contributes a depth of knowledge.
Low Subject fills in important details.
NA Subject importance is not applicable.

My Thoughts/Proposal:

Top Large settlements, very notable from outside. Southampton, New Forest
High Smaller settlements and places of interest/awareness outside the county. Aldershot, Southampton F.C., University of Southampton. Winchester Cathedral
Mid Smallest settlements/areas. Places of importance to residents, including more notable schools/colleges. Overviews of whole of county. Marwell Zoological Park, Netley, History of Hampshire, Peter Symonds College
Low Everything else, generally only important to a small number of people in the county. Sholing railway station, Cantell Secondary School, Southampton Music Services
No
Items/people from/in Hampshire that are non-notable The General (TV series)

Hmmm, just realised we could 'copy' someone elses. Wikipedia:WikiProject Cornwall/Assessment phrases it well:

Label Criteria Examples
Top Places, icons or topics recognisable or of interest to the whole UK or further. Cornwall, Saint Piran's Flag, Eden Project
High Articles with recognition in the Westcountry or all of Cornwall. Camborne, Media in Cornwall
Mid Articles with recognition in most of Cornwall or specialist topics. Looe, Diocese of Truro
Low Articles with very localised recognition. Lanner

--Fluteflute Talk Contributions 16:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the general guidelines outlined in {{Importance legend}} do a good job, if we apply the criteria to Hampshire specifically. In other words:
Label Criteria Examples
Top Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia of Hampshire Hampshire, cities and major towns, scheduled ancient monuments
High Subject is exceptionally important within Hampshire Grade I and II* listed buildings, smaller towns and particularly notable villages, local government districts, Portsmouth and Southampton football clubs, Hampshire Cricket Club, major rivers, particularly notable schools (eg Winchester College), particularly notable people from Hampshire
Mid Subject contributes a depth of knowledge to Hampshire. Grade II and III listed buildings, villages and larger city suburbs, parishes, urban area articles, tributaries to major rivers, secondary schools, not-very-famous people who's sphere of influence is related to the county
Low Subject fills in important details. Smaller city suburbs, hamlets, primary schools, people from Hampshire who's sphere of influence doesn't relate directly to the county
I think in general all of the suggestions are in broad agreement, and it's important to remember that the whole process is subjective and so there will be differences of opinion. If there's a particularly difficult or contentious choice, it should be brought here for discussion. waggers (talk) 12:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:13, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Bursledon Windmill

Can this article be reassessed please? Mjroots (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)  Done waggers (talk) 11:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Portuguese Fireplace

Does anyone know where i can find more info on this. Also have i repeated myself? Also have i repeated myself? Also have i repeated myself? Also have i repeated myself? Simply south (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC) Simply south (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater South East

I am proposing to merge a number of low or moderately active projects in south east England. The discussion is here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England#Wikipedia:WikiProject Greater South East MRSC (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Neatham

I've created a stub for Neatham. Feel free to improve it. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 10:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Up Nately

I've started a stub for Up Nately. All contributions welcome. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 08:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Winslade

I have created a stub for Winslade. It is needing a infobox and a map, please help if you can. Thank you. Jaguar (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2010 (GMT)

 Done waggers (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Bentworth

Could this article be reassessed please? Jaguar (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done Jaguar (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Southampton Terminus Railway Station

Can this be reassessed please, a lot of work from a few people have gone into remaking this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southampton_Terminus_railway_station (Zeoace (talk) 10:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC))

There are still large sections with no references. This needs to be addressed before the article can be re-rated. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 11:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Tufton

I've created a stub for Tufton. All contributions welcome. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 08:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hampshire articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Hampshire articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hampshire settlements

Hi, I started working through the Basingstoke and Deane settlements and them branched out in Jaguars footsteps to more general Hampshire village articles, adding templates, governance and infoboxes. I've noticed that the Hampshire subdivision navigational boxes are quite different and in some cases missing:


And missing (unless I just haven't found them yet) Rushmore, Fareham (borough) and Havant (borough). So, which one should they all look like? And is New Forest Towns just New Forest (the national park) or should it be New Forest (district) like the other boxes? Scillystuff (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind comments. The New Forest template counts as the district itself (if it were to count as the National Park, there would be settlements that are not in Hampshire, some of the New Forest extends into Wiltshire). I too have noticed that all the Hampshire templates look different. But generally speaking, they should all look like the {{East Hampshire}}, {{Test Valley}} and {{Winchester}} templates because they were generally speaking, the oldest and default ones! Also, all the other templates need cleaning up. There are currently some redlinks in the {{Havant}} template and the {{Eastleigh borough}} one is not according to the general layout. I will be happy to create the Rushmoor and Fareham boroughs, although they are difficult to create because Rushmoor only covers the towns of Aldershot and Farnborough (along with its suburbs which have not yet been created) and Fareham only coveres... well, Fareham! I will look into these and see what I can do. Jaguar (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, so I have boldly modified Winchester and New Forest to be more similar to the other templates. Scillystuff (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Charles Fryatt

I've added the {{Hants}} to the talk page of Charles Fryatt (a GA). I've assessed the importance as low, feel free to change this if you wish. Mjroots (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Weston Colley

I have been building this page (on the back of Jaguar's start). I hope to add images soon (have to find out how to do so). Also, I hope this is the right place - apologies if not - but Weston Colley is shown as in the civil parish of Stoke Charity. Is this correct? I thought - as do all the fellow residents with whom I spoke - that Weston Colley was within Micheldever. I have, however, left it as is for now, pending feedback. When I know for certain, I shall be able to re-write the first paragraph better than I have it now. Also: I am citing references where I can, though many aspects are only verifiable from visiting, rather than from known records (which may or may not exist). I may be able to offer further proof via the photographs when I discover how to submit them. Any comments appreciated. Druidbroga. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Druidbroga (talkcontribs) 22:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

According to the OS 1:25000 map (see here), it's inside the boundary of Micheldever civil parish. Parish boundaries are the dotted lines such as the one drawn just below the words "River Dever" between Weston Colley and Stoke Charity; parish names are written in large dark grey capitals. Stoke Charity is itself not a civil parish, but lies within Wonston CP. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Timeline of Jane Austen

There is a new weekly section on the main page called "Today's featured list" and I have nominated Timeline of Jane Austen to have a spot here. There has been some opposition to the nomination and it looks like the list could become a removal candidate very soon unless the quality of the list is improved. If you are interested in maintaining the list's featured status and seeing a summary of it up on the main page, your help in improving the article would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Where is Swanwick?

According to various maps - both printed and online - Swanwick village is here, and Swanwick railway station is to the south of that, here. Yet a succession of IP editors seem bent on transposing their relative positions, see editing history of Swanwick, Hampshire and editing history of Swanwick railway station. I cannot revert again, because I would then have violated WP:3RR. Can anybody assist please? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Places in the Southampton/Portsmouth borderline are one of the most confusing places on earth (from personal experience). They consist of only names yet these 'settlements' do not have any history - most were built on purpose due to the London overspill and they all consists of huge council estates. Swansick is no civil parish (it's in Fareham) so the its boundaries extend to the railway station, but the actual village is above the M27. Jaguar (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I've just reverted again, which could be construed as borderline WP:3RR vio - four reverts in slightly over 24 hours. The maddening thing is that these IP editors are clearly not looking at maps. Given that the station is a fixed, known point - if Swanwick railway station is approximately one mile east of the village and Lower Swanwick is situated two miles SSW of the village, then Swanwick is actually in Sarisbury, and Lower Swanwick is actually in Warsash. Could project members please add the two Swanwick pages to their watchlists? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
No need to worry about this nonsense. I've semi-protected both pages for three weeks. Nev1 (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg Thank you --Redrose64 (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Itchen Navigation

I have taken the liberty of updating the status of this article to B-class on your project, as it has been expanded by a factor of five, and now meets the criteria for that designation. I hope this is ok, but if not, feel free to re-assess it. Regards. Bob1960evens (talk) 07:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

It has now passed a GA assessment. Bob1960evens (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion discussion of Bristol/Bath to South Coast Study

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bristol/Bath to South Coast Study. to discuss whether the article, which falls within the domain of this wikiproject, should be deleted — Rod talk 15:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Task forces

Hello as we are a very major project I think it would be constructive to create some task forces for example Basingstoke or Winchester may need a good task force each. If you think so please tell me below. Ideally we need at least five to start one and ten to be really effective

  • basingstoke
  • winchester
  • Andover
  • portsmouth

<-Please put more ideas at bottom of list.-> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calu2000 (talkcontribs) 00:32, 4 January 2013

Not a bad idea and one I've considered for a while, but I'm not sure we have enough active members for task forces to be effective. Until we get a bigger and more active membership I think setting up task forces would be more effort than it's worth.
We might also want to consider topical rather than locality based task forces - eg. rivers, country houses, settlements etcWaggersTALK 16:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
thank you for your support looking at the users list I quite Agee mor time is needed Not done (I've always wanted to do that yay!!!)

List of hills of Hampshire

I have just created a list of hills of Hampshire which I hope readers will find useful. Feel free to check and enhance. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed reinstatement of article on Bristol/Bath to South Coast Study

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Bristol/Bath to South Coast Study#Proposed reinstatement of content. -- Trevj (talk) 10:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Intro

I just redid the intro for this page. Hopefully it is a big improvement on what we had before. --Jwikiediting (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Just a note, the formatting of the box is being discussed at Portal_talk:Hampshire/box-header if anyone wants to join the discussion. --Jwikiediting (talk) 14:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Please help get Hants ready for the start of the Wiki Loves Monuments competition on 1st September

This September the UK is taking part for the first time in the international photography competition Wiki Loves Monuments. Participants will be invited to submit pictures of listed buildings of significant importance (grades I or grade II*), as recorded by English Heritage. The main external website for competitors can be found here, and you can leave a message there if you have queries about competing. Do please join in, and let people in your local area know of this excellent way in which both existing and new Wiki users can help improve the encyclopaedia by contributing photographs of local listed structures. What about organizing a local Wikimeet to attract new people?

In preparation for the start of the competition on 1st September there is still quite a lot of work to do, and we would like to ask for the help of members of this wikiproject. Your local and expert knowledge will be invaluable in ensuring that the lists of eligible buildings are up to date and correctly formatted. If you look at Listed buildings in the United Kingdom you will see how many structures are included. If you then follow the link to Listed buildings in England, you can get to the detailed lists for your area. Alternatively have a look at the WLM planning table. Can you help to ensure that the lists for your area are up to date and well presented?

Some of the lists have been semi-automatically generated from data provided by English Heritage. These use pre formatted templates (eg EH header) which will make it much easier for competition participants to upload their photographs to Commons as an automated process. Please don't change the template structure, as we need to ensure that the templates are properly compatible with the WLM standards that are in use worldwide. The format will allow a bot automatically to collect the information and to put it into the international Monuments Database.

The data still needs the attention of local editors:

  • The "title" may need wikilinking to a suitable article name (whether we currently have that article or not). If there are several buildings in one street all of the wikilinks point at an article about the street; however each entry has a separate line in the list.
  • The "location" column looks and sorts better if just the parish or town is included (& wikilinked).
  • The "date completed" column sometimes has eg "C19" for 19th century, and "C1850" for c. 1850 when the date is uncertain - these need to be corrected manually.
  • The "grid ref & lat & long" (which is occasionally missing) may be given to 8 characters — only 6 (grid ref) or 5 (lat & long) are really needed.
  • Clicking on the "list entry number" should take you to the data sheet for that entry on the English Heritage database which can be checked if needed for details.
  • The image column should have a picture added if we already have a suitable image on Commons. (N.B. if you are going to be taking photos yourself for inclusion in the competition don't upload them until September)
  • References may be added according to normal WP practice.

For further information, please see Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in the United Kingdom.

If you have any queries, please post them not below but on the Organizers' help page on Commons.

Anything you can do to help improve these lists will be much appreciated. The final deadline for cleaning up is 31st August.

--MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Charles Simeon

Members of this WikiProject may be able to help with this request. Thanks heaps. Schwede66 10:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Flow

Hi all. You've probably already heard about WP:FLOW, the new talk page system that's going to be introduced across Wikipedia. The Flow team are currently looking for WikiProjects to volunteer to be early adopters of the system, and I was thinking we could put our hat into the ring. I know this talk page isn't hugely busy but in some ways that makes us good contenders to try out the new system. Any objections? WaggersTALK 08:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Will it be mandatory? If so, I'm out. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, what do you mean by "mandatory," Redrose64? If you mean "I have to do it because someone from the Wikimedia Foundation says so," then no :) I am very curious about why you seem to feel opposed to participating, though. Can you elaborate on your concerns? Maryana (WMF) (talk) 20:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Flow, from what I have seen, will force a structure on a talk page. Unlike Visual Editor (where users may choose whether to use it or not), it will be all or nothing: once the talk page is converted to Flow, it can no longer be edited as wikitext. Talk pages are much more than simple threaded discussions. We will not be able to give examples of markup, demonstrate code, use templates, serve warnings, or use anything other than the most basic wiki markup. We will not be able to partially amend the comments of others, even if they be simple typos (such as where they used the wrong form of markup or linked the wrong page); and so if somebody gives out personal information (on help desks, newbies often give out email addresses at the end of what is otherwise a perfectly legitimate post), or makes an offensive remark, we will either have to leave it alone or revert the whole edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Bearing in mind that this discussion is about using Flow on this page in particular, not talk pages in general, and none of those examples are from this page or are things we often do on this page, I don't quite understand the objection. This is about trying Flow out here and here only, for the time being. We can only explore whether any perceived limitations are genuine concerns by trying it, and I think this project talk page is a good place to do that. Pretty much all of the discussions here are simple threaded discussions so Flow should work well here. WaggersTALK 09:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
What about: the wikiproject banner and to-do lists; this demo; this suggestion; or these examples? How will they work? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  1. The Summary of features in the minimum viable product specification shows that there will be an editable header area, so we won't lose things like the WP banner.
  2. Templates, including table templates, work in Flow. For example, try copying this wikitext into a new topic at the Flow sandbox - it works.
  3. If they didn't work for whatever reason, (eg for highly complex templates etc) it would still be possible to create them in userspace and link to them from here for discussion.
I hope that addresses your concerns. I think there have been a lot of myths flying about concerning what Flow will or won't be able to do, and most of those are without foundation. I'm not saying there won't be teething issues, but let's give it a chance. WaggersTALK 14:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Yep, Waggers is correct on all counts. You can still configure your project headers with links and templates. You can still use the vast majority of wikitext, templates, and extensions within individual posts.
The point of this very limited trial is for us to 1) discover any potential limitations and fix them, and 2) start identifying features that will be needed for any kind of wider releases (to user talk, article talk, etc.). Lastly, if you're not happy with how Flow works during the trial, we can disable it and return all the discussions you had back to unstructured wikitext. So, you basically get to work with a big engineering team to build the Wikipedia discussion system of your dreams, and you won't lose any existing discussions along the way. I'd say it's pretty low-risk and high benefit, but I'm biased :) Maryana (WMF) (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Can Flow be disabled or can it be opted-out? Sorry for coming in late as I've been on and off wikipedia for months and I agree with Redrose that the older version sounds a lot simpler here! Jaguar 19:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
@Jaguar: I can't understand how clicking "edit", scrolling down to the end of the comment you want to respond to, using the right number of colons to indent, signing with four tildes, and remembering a whole heap of other Wikitext and talk page conventions is in any way simpler than just typing in a text box and clicking on a "reply" button, even for experienced users let alone newbies. But that's a discussion for somewhere else. My understanding is that once Flow is enabled on a page, users won't be able to edit the wikitext version of that page. Note that doesn't stop you from including wikitext in your Flow posts though, as discussed above. WaggersTALK 12:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I see. Yes I agree with you there some conventions that can be made a lot simpler, I have always found that using the right number of colons just to reply to someone is very annoying! Sorry I've been away from wikipedia for a long time I forgot how some of the things work! Jaguar 15:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────That's great, thanks Jaguar. Having addressed Redrose64's concerns above and with no other forthcoming objections, I think we're ready to roll. WaggersTALK 11:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to seeing this! :) Jaguar 19:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Portsea

Should Portsea have its own article, or just be Portsea Island#Portsea? It was turned into a dab page on 17 October, with as yet no attention to the incoming links which now lead to a dab page. Someone with local knowledge might like to have a look at it. I've also left a note on the talk page of the editor who made the change. PamD 23:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I have now fixed all of the incoming links which now do not lead to the dab page. 2 of the links to Portsea in fact referred to Portsea, Victoria. One referred to the island as a whole. BTW I have the local knowledge mentioned. The term cropped up historically in written records (being a city parish) more than it does today, with people simply today in almost every case submitting to outsiders they are from Portsmouth. One thinks of St Giles, London being a good analogy. - Adam37 Talk 20:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Flow invitation to kick-the-tires

Hey all, We've reached the stage with Flow where it's relatively stable, and we'd like to invite you to take some time to try it out and chase bugs. It currently lives on a staff-run test server, which means it isn't hooked up to Single User Login - you can either edit anonymously or, preferably, create a new account under your current username.

The software has a minimal set of features at the moment; normal discussions with wikitext and templates should work fine (although Quiddity has only imported a few hundred templates), but there are some known bugs (and features that we're working on this fortnight) with the software. We're not looking to deploy Flow to enwiki in its current form, nor asking you to give your seal of approval to that.

What we'd like is for you to use the software, test it out and let us know two things:

  1. If there are any bugs (you can report them here);
  2. What changes or features you'd need added, to be personally comfortable with deploying it on your wikiproject (which you can explain here)

On the off chance that Flow is really, really broken for you, to the point where you can't post (maybe a browser issue?) you can of course use the enwiki talkpage for both purposes. If you have any questions about the test, you can post them there too :). We're going to be holding this testing open for a week to allow people to really hammer on the software, although we may not be around Thursday or Friday (it's Thanksgiving). If not, don't worry: we'll reply to you when we return.

Thanks! –Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. It would be great if more editors would test out the current setup, and give feedback (there, here, anywhere!). The devs and designers need to know what you're thinking, and what you're missing/wanting (and what you're appreciating!).
Also, you might like to glance through these 2 test pages that I created on that server: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Hampshire and Talk:River_source which I copied across a few weeks/days ago. I copied them across diff-by-diff by going through the history, and used a variety of accounts (randomly in the first, and more rigorously in the second), so hopefully that's a fairly accurate representation of how it might look (except for the clustered times).
Thanks again, –Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Are we ready to Flow here? News and a request for confirmation

Greetings. First off, thank you for greatly assisting with the feedback and suggestions on Flow's development - the team can only build it as well as our support enables them to.

They'd like us to confirm that we're all ready and willing to try it out right here, so that we can find out what works well, what needs more changes, and what additional features are mostly prominently desired or dreamed of over the next few months. The trial would start during the week of January 6th (specific day to be set closer to launch) and will last for as long as your WikiProject is interested in using the software (more details on ending the trial below).

Here's a synopsis of what's been added recently (which you can test at mw:Talk:Sandbox):

  • mw:Special:Contributions now works properly again.
  • 3 viewing options: normal, collapsed, and small for a Table of contents-like view of the page
  • Attribution of moderated content (see mockup image)

Here's a list of items that they're working on this month as top-priority, which will be added to the live software as soon as possible (some likely before the WikiProject trial period).

Next two weeks:

  • A more condensed "small view" (see mockup image)
  • Attribution of edited content (see mockup image)
  • Replacing the roll-over links (e.g. "Reply") with static links, and moving the permalink/moderation tools into an "action menu" (see mockup image)

Next four weeks:

  • Better automated edit-summaries (see notes)
  • Abuse-filter integration (see analysis)
  • A "thank" button (that works like the current thank feature)
  • A system to "Close and summarize" an entire topic (equivalent to {{hat}} etc)

Beyond that, there's a long list of brainstormed features, at mw:Flow Portal/Release planning#Feature buckets - your feedback and suggestions would, as ever, be most appreciated.

The transition: The current talkpage will be archived in-full in the regular way. The page will be Flow-enabled, and the WikiProject header templates added. After that, we hope that normal WikiProject discussions will resume as usual, and that any Flow-related discussions will take place at Wikipedia talk:Flow.

The "opt-out" mechanism: If there's WikiProject consensus to back out of the trial once it is underway, that will take about 24 hours from once you've decided. The Flow team will then convert the Flow Board into a wikitext page, add default signature+timestamps, and place that here. However, they do of course strongly hope that you'll weather through any small problems (of which some are inevitable), and continue to give ongoing suggestions!

The more we/you speak up with good insights, the faster it will turn into the discussion&collaboration system we've always wanted and needed. Thanks again. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Straw poll

I'm ready to trial
  • WaggersTALK 12:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Jaguar 17:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm almost ready to trial, but would like to see x changed/added first.
I object to any live implementation of Flow at this time

An update on Flow

Hi all. This is a very brief note, to let you know the current plans. January 23 (Thursday 27 (afternoon PST) is the current target date for release on this page, and at WP:WikiProject Breakfast, as well as at WT:Flow and WT:Flow/Design FAQ (WT:Flow/Developer_test_page). This will give the devs time to work on a bug-sprint, so that they can concentrate on the fresh feedback from us when it goes live. :) Thanks again, Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Date update: January 28th is now set on the deployment calendar. (Because next week, there's a US Holiday on Monday, and an engineer summit on Thursday/Friday). Thanks. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I see one user proposing it and two objecting. That soes not look like consensus to implemet it to me. DES (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
@DESiegel: Hi. This edit (the end of the thread) was taken to have demonstrated consensus. I'll ping Redrose64 now though, in case more input is required. Any other WikiProject participants are of course welcome to chime in, too! :) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Frankly I object to any page on the English language Wikipedia being made thus less usable. (and from the descriptiosn of the limitations of Flow phase 1, i do not think it suitable for any page on the project as yet.) Pages are not WP:OWNED by wiki projects, after all. DES (talk) 02:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
The "less usable" thing is purely subjective. My own experience of testing Flow indicates that it will make talk pages considerable more usable than they are at present. There's no loss of functionality. And ultimately the only way to settle this argument is to give it a go. As stated above this is a relatively low volume talk page so if there were to be any issues with trying it here they would be well contained. WaggersTALK 22:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I note that the ownership guideline is about Wikipedia content, not Wikipedia processes (which can, self-evidently, be centred around a particular group of people. ArbCom control the ArbCom pages, Sandy and her delegates control the FAC pages...and it seems sensible to suggest that a Wikiproject, which is quite literally "a group of Wikipedians coming together around a shared interest", is probably possessed by that group of Wikipedians). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
@Jaguar: and any other Wikiproject participants: your input in the straw poll above, would be appreciated. I'd be happy to help answer any questions, as always. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 02:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for tagging me in this, I have just had a look at one example of Flow and am quite confused. Why are several users called 'Diego Moya' and 'Bluemoon1234'? Are these just bugs that won't be present in the final version? Either way it looks good and I would be supporting it as other than these problems it looks clean, simple and fresh! Jaguar 17:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
@Jaguar: Sorry, the confusion is my fault: That talkpage was an early test, where I used 3 accounts (each running in Chrome/Firefox/Opera) to rapidly&imperfectly copy across the prior discussions (Bluemoon123, and Crash test model, are both me ;). Diego Moya then added some later threads, using his own test accounts. No bugs, just laziness! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Just noting: Should this test of Flow go live, it will be used to test functionality of both Checkuser and Oversight (suppression) tools. Test accounts will be used as well. Risker (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

There's been a delay of one week, due to differences between the mediawikiwiki and enwiki codebases, so the deployment is now scheduled for Monday, February 3, between 11-13 PST. Thanks for your patience. :) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Southampton map

Hi, I've requested a better quality map here. If you have any specific requests please ask there.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)