Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Templates

I added a table of templates, however, I didn't include the {{WikiProject England}} template because it screwed up the page. Anyone know what's wrong with it? --Veesicle (Talk) 20:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Also I made a userbox template - I followed the style of userboxes of other WikiProjects, hope it's fine. --Veesicle (Talk) 20:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that too, here's an example of the weird things it does, although I inserted the code at the top of the discussion page: Talk:East_Anglia. --BrokenSphere 21:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I was going to note this issue as well, as there are a number of Scouting articles with the England template. You might try re-doing it using Template:ScoutingWikiProject as a basis. If you don't want the quality tags, you can go back through the history. I'm pretty sure we filed the serial numbers off of someone else's template. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civil Parishes, etc

I see that one of the goals of this project is to improve the coverage of parishes within England beyond that of just a single line. This has exercised our minds on the Cheshire project, and you may be interested to read and take part in an ongoing discussion we are having on that project's talk page about this matter (though of specific relevence to Cheshire.) You can view the discussions on the Cheshire project's talk page, especially sections 3, 9, 12, and 13, together with the listed categories and templates given on the main project page. The tables contained here are also useful. Section 3 is a long one and it contains a lot of the key information of relevance here, though its initial information may not strike you of being of great importance.

We are in the process of sorting this out, but for us, the main idea has been to get hold of the concept clearly that a civil parish is not necessarily the same thing as its contained settlement, and that some civil parishes contain more than one settlement. Furthermore, there are unparished areas in some parts of the country that contain settlements and quite substantial towns. Consequently, we have arrived, or are close to arriving, at the position that there should be articles about civil parishes separate from articles about the parishes' settlements.

A further issue that I have just become aware of is that some civil parishes in the various boroughs of Cheshire are actually quite small. So much so that a group of civil parishes neighboring each other have been grouped together to have a joint parish council. (This may be an early stage in the process of merging civil parishes together to make them more viable, but that is speculation.) Although this is most apparent within the City of Chester borough, it also happens in some of the other boroughs of Cheshire. In a further twist, if a parish is so small and any grouping has not taken place, the parish may end up being placed in the administration of people appointed by and acting for the borough council (again, City of Chester has some of these, including the oddity and archaic Chester Castle parish.)

The previous paragraph's facts all add further weight, we believe, to making much more clear the distinction between civil parishes and settlements by having separate articles for each unless there are very good reasons not to (for example, a large civil parish, which is in effect, ruled by a town council and contains the whole of a large town and nothing else, such as Northwich, Middlewich, Congleton, and Nantwich and other towns in Cheshire.) There is certainly often enough distinctive information about a parish that can be included in the parish entry rather than the settlement's entry, since the former is an administrative entity, and the latter is a settlement,. So, the two kinds of articles can cover different kinds of things.

I've written more than I intended, and summarized swome things which can be read where I jhave indicated. Also, some of our discussions are ongoing, but I think we are arriving at a consensus of how to approach the issues, and what to normnally expect to see in the two kinds of articles. We have noted that the two UK-wide projects that have dealt with such issues before (Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography, and Wikipedia:WikiProject UK subdivisions) are often rather quiet. We are surprised that the issues about civil parishes we have uncovered and discussed have not been discussed in either of them, despite some attempts to start discussion off. So we have tended to "take the initiative" in a way that we think works well for Cheshire, and could work very well for other counties. So, I hope this information is of use to your project.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lets make this project active

I am going to attempt to get this project underway! I am here because I was looking for independent editors to assist with my pet article in return for my help on their projects.

I suggest a good starting point is organising the front page. We need to provide an active, up to date resource that editors will keep returning to. Items such as help requests that get responses.

Lets start the debate: Item 1 - Goals.

The ones added by RHB are a good starting point,although I think we should be saying "Featured Article" rather than "GA status at least". I suggest another goal of "Providing assistance to other Wikipedians working on England based articles". How about County articles?

I think we would need to measure progress on the goals on a subpage. For example, a table showing how many parishes are "FA or A or GA or B or Start or Stub" on a month by month basis. We would need to come up with a style for the goal "Set a common style for English related articles".

MortimerCat 08:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll ask User:PocklingtonDan to run User:PockBot on Category:England, which should give a table on the category talk page currently rated articles and their quality. RHB Talk - Edits 18:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
It can be run by anyone, but not on top level categories, and currently the categorising for England is a bit of a mess, so I'll leave it for now. RHB Talk - Edits

[edit] Suggestion no. 2

I think this projects main role should be to support the County sub-projects, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Cheshire, Wikipedia:WikiProject Devon, Wikipedia:WikiProject Cornwall and Wikipedia:WikiProject Kent.

Some of these are nascent projects, looking for ideas on how to run a project. This project would be a great meeting place, to ask for help, formulating guidelines, passing on ideas, getting an independent non-local reviewer to pop by. This is what I was looking for when I found this project.

I think people are more likely to work on local articles so the County projects would be more active in productive output. MortimerCat 00:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Categories by English county

The US has the very useful Category:Categories by state of the United States, I don't think there is an english equivalent. Does anyone know? If not i'll start one off soon. GameKeeper 23:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] England article

If you could head over to Talk:England#Template for country articles and offer your opinion on the article template, it would help to trim down the article and hopefully improve it. Thanks, RHB Talk - Edits 20:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] English Heritage

There is a small edit war occurring with English Heritage in Cornwall. A Cornish protest group is putting a biased (in my opinion) section in all of the Cornish sites, see list here, and a section in the main English Heritage article. Could a few independant people pop along, and express their opinion please. Putney Bridge 00:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] English law

I have some serious concerns about the quality of our article on English law, and have raised them on the Talk page. Please contribute to the discussion and help improve the article:

Thanks. -- Mais oui! 09:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major changes

Hi there, I've noticed this Project seems very inactive, I would like to help bring it up to a well-known and very active WikiProject, if no-one objects then maybe we should start some work on this, if everyone agrees I'll be willing to make a logo and make the Project generally a bit more informative, if anyone would like to help it would be greatly appreciated.Tellyaddict 16:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New infobox

A new infobox has been developed for use on UK places articles. If you have any concerns or appraisals, please make them at Template talk:Infobox UK place. Regards, Jhamez84 02:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I have already made it plain that I do not support the dropping of the historic county field, but my objections have been ignored. If this is supposed to replace the existing templates it absolutely needs to provide the same information as the previous ones or a lot of editors are going to be very annoyed. Owain (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Consensus can change. It has. consensus has been assessed three times in response to your complaints, and in each case, the new consensus was not to your liking.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep the original England box. Some people are trying to roll out the new UK box on South Yorkshire articles, and I have been trying to revert. L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 02:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
All six of them? Just for the republic of South Yorkshire? Jhamez84 03:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New User Box

Hey guys, just made an optional user box which is pretty much exactly the same, but it has no boarder. Just for those users who have all otehr user boxes without boarders, this one fits in. Here's what it looks like. If you like it, let me know and I'll add it to the table.

This user is a member of WikiProject England.

Blackkrash 20:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Assessments and inter-project working

I am an active member of the Cheshire WikiProject, and I've noticed after your latest drive for help that some articles that we have tagged and are assessing have been tagged in preparation to being assessed by theEngland WikiProject. Do we need to coordinate things here at all? It may make more sense to remove the articles in your list of places that are in need of tagging which are in Cheshire, so long as you have our assurance (which you can have), that we will be tagging them ourselves as quickly as possible. This would then leave more available time to people to tag articles in areas not covered by our project, and we would have less chance of getting into possibly unhelpful disagreements between the two projects assessments of a particular article's quality. The longer term solution would be to just have an assessment template, separate to the various interested project templates, which could be use for an assessment by any member of any interested project. I'd be grateful for comments.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

(First of all User:Tellyaddict has replied on my own talk page to a duplicate message I placed on his talk page. This is my reply to him.)
Thanks for the comments on my talk page. Yes, we could always agree to disagree, and I have also seen differing assessments of the same article made by different projects > However, this doesn't (to my mind) mean it is a good thing to see that, as it doesn't seem very professional, and could devalue the idea of assessments in casual readers' eyes. (e.g., they may think: "differing assessments; nothing done to resolve them; so do assessments matter anyway?") The other issue, as I mentioned, if the duplication of effort given that there are a very large number of assessments to be made. I still think it is worthwhile considering this more for these reasons, and would help foster the wikipedia ideal of working together. We could consider agreeing that if differing assessments have been made, the two assessors should get together and try to resolve the difference. I know this doesn't appear to be done in other cases at the moment, but it may be a good move to start to do it, as it would help "thrash out" any deficits in a much more rigorous way, and it might well enable the assessment itself to improve its own quality as a result. This would, of course, depend on assessors declaring themselves (which I think would be good proactice anyway), and it would require a written summary of why the assessment given was given. It would seem to me that this would definitely help editors know more of what needs to be done to improve articles.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
There will always be differences of opinion & I don't think that is a bad thing - as it shows these are subjective & not an exact science (even with the assessment guidelines). In Wikipedia:WikiProject Bristol our assessments not only have a stub, start, B, GA etc they also include what work is needed eg does the article have or need photos, infobox etc & this enables us to identify and track where particular input is needed.— Rod talk 18:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] = Nomination of category for merging/renaming

You may be interested to know that a nomination has been posted to change one of the categories you use in this project. It can be seen here. I didn't nominate it, but noticed it whilst looking at nominations that do concern Wikipedia:WikiProject Cheshire.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assesment confusion...

It seems that WikiProject England is using two different inconsistent assessment templates ... some articles are tagged with {{WPE}}, while others are tagged with {{WikiProject England}}. Probably the best way to fix this is to figure out which one you use the most, and make the other transclude that. See my related nomination Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_20#Category:WikiProject_Cheshire. -- Prove It (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes I noticed this last night but couldn't think of how to fix it neatly. I have transcluded the {{WPE}} template into the {{WikiProject England}} template as WPE is the most used one. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 20:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox flag straw poll

Hello fellow editors. A straw poll has opened today (27th March 2007) regarding the use of flags on the United Kingdom place infoboxes. There are several potential options to use, and would like as many contrubutors to vote on which we should decide upon. The straw poll is found here. If joining the debate, please keep a cool head and remain civil. We look forward to seeing you there. Jhamez84 11:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doctor Who missing episodes FAR

Doctor Who missing episodes has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 16:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moorgate FAR

Moorgate has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Listed buildings in England

Category:Listed buildings in England needs to be populated. Please add the appropriate tag to any listed building. Calineed 13:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bilateral relations discussion

I would like to invite you all to participate in a discussion at this thread regarding bilateral relations between two countries. All articles related to foreign relations between countries are now under the scope of WikiProject Foreign relations, a newly created project. We hope that the discussion will result in a more clean and organized way of explaining such relationships. Thank you. Ed ¿Cómo estás? 18:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_England_354b.html"