Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sheffield

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This dicussion page is for participants of the Wikipedia:Sheffield project to discuss future articles, changes to make or moves...

Archive 1 - October 2006 to March 2007.

Contents

[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 02:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we at WP:Sheff decide which template we want for South Yorkshire articles? I prefer the original, and it has just survived TfD... L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 00:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
We're not given the choice to use or not use the infobox, in fact the group who created the infobox have themselves replaced most of the previous infobox then claimed it is used nowhere, after making the changes themselves. I do not accept their template. Their forced implementation not helping cooperation, now impossible. If Sheffield place infobox is deleted, articles will revert to their previous state of not possessing an infobox at all. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
They didn't copyright it did they? Can it not be reverted? Surely for articles relating to Sheffield, we can use template that we at WP:Sheff like? L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 14:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
We should indeed, especially if these articles are maintain solely by WP:Sheffield. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 15:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you are mistaken. Surely I don't need to emphasise that WikiProjects don't own articles. Members of project have no more say or rights than any other editor. The consensus to delete the Sheffield infobox seems to be developing, if Captain Scarlet or lewisskinner disagree then they should make their opinions heard on the TfD. If you don't participate in this process then how can you question any outcome?
Simply reverting other users edits is not solving the issue. Any concerns need to be expressed on the appropriate TfDs. Whilst I haven't spotted any recent 3RR violations, constantly reverting articles is pointless. Adambro 15:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please bear WP:OWN in mind. This WikiProject does not own any articles, even those where, to-date, only members of this project have edited the article. However, no other WIkiProject can claim ownership of these articles, so where there is dispute the use of a template should be decided on a per article basis. —JeremyA (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record (AFAICT) Template:Infobox England place is not yet saved. If it is saved it will have much more to do with the fact that at the time of nomination all boxes were still in use (England had ~1000 transclusions) and a nationalist political sentiment stirred up amongst a number of Scottish editors (which as a political opinion should have been irrelevant) to save Template:Infobox Scotland place because the replacement has "UK" in the name and was put up for deletion by an English editor than any will to keep the England template. Had the user who nominated deletion waited until the England template was out of mainstream use and nominated separately, deletion IMHO, would have been a certainty.
On a second note, there are very real ownership issues here. Besides there being a debate provoked over who should be allowed to have a say in what goes in S Yorkshire articles, there appears to be a suggestion to me that Captain Scarlet is the editor-in-chief of Wikipedia South Yorkshire and if he disagrees changes cant be made no matter how many people disagree, Captain Scarlet, who a few days ago was harping on about consensus appears to have decided on behalf of not just WikiProject Sheffield, but the whole of Wikipedia, that should the Sheffield infobox be deleted the articles in question "will" have no infobox.Pit-yacker 15:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
On the matter of ownership, although I could have made a better choice of where to put it, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Using the vandalism warning templates inappropriately has an interesting comment from someone who appears to ve an admin person about ownership that is well worth quoting here: "Your WikiProject also does not get to make the decision as to what templates are used on pages relating to the project; the entire Wikipedia community does." (written by Consumed Crustacean in the link referred to on the Admin's Noticeboard.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
As off topic as it may seem, ddstretch (talk • contribs) may have a point as to why the hell WikiProjects exist in the first place. Where has this ownership thing come from? I don't remember using anything else than maintain as a word symbolising "the article is currently only edited by", far from ownership. If WP have no say on anything, let's disolve the whole thing, we'll go on our merry way.
FAO Adambro (talk • contribs), I don't remember neither myself of Lewisskinner (talk • contribs) claiming ownership in our names or the name of project. You are accusing us from doing so in your words: WP:NPA
FAO Pit-yacker (talk • contribs), yes I maintain that, do you have a problem with that? You don't want any other templates to be around, fine, there won't be one then... Sounds like a good enough compromise with me... I'm sure you're more insulted by the fact that although you've put thooooouuuuusands of hours of work into your template, I look down on it as being absolutely nothing worthy of presence here. You may however not comment on what I think, that would be a WP:AGF, you presume of my actions Pit-yacker. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 17:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Regarding User:Captain scarlet's comment directed at me, I'm very surprised he cannot understand the point I was making, and shocked that he interprets my comments as a personal attack. The statement by lewisskinner, "Surely for articles relating to Sheffield, we can use template that we at WP:Sheff like?", and the reply by Captain scarlet, "We should indeed, especially if these articles are maintain solely by WP:Sheffield", clearly implies that both users believe that they as members of the WikiProject should have more power over articles related to the project subject. This is not the case, as per the ownership of articles guidelines mentioned by the JeremyA. Why isn't he being accused of making personal attacks when his comments were very similar to mine? I suggest you ensure you are familar with WP:NPA before making further accusations. Adambro 17:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I was stating that were a concensus reached here at WP:Sheff, then surely that is the template we ought to be using? How do you interpret ownership from that may I ask? L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 12:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Captain Scarlet: Your edit summary of "Who say owt 'bout ownership?" and the content of your message suggests you think ownership is irrelevant and/or offtopic. However, a number of users in messages just prior to my own mentioned it. Also, in the relevant discussion in the Admin's Noticeboard (to which I have already supplied a link) your reply to my initial message prompted an Admin to make the comemnts about your assumptions of ownership. I think you may be mistaken if you think ownership is not an issue underlying this, even if you or some other people did not use the word "own" or any of its derivatives in messages.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
So Captain Scarlet, where is there the consensus that there should be no infobox on South Yorkshire articles that previously used the South Yorkshire template? I thought you were keen on consesnsus! If on an article by article basis, there is a consensus to have no infobox I will stand by that. However, the current decision not to include any infobox has been made unilatterly by yourself. On the subject of the UK vs England box, you appear to suggest the desires of two members of WikiProject South Yorkshire (who whilst I doubt are the same person, appear to have a very close relationship) have greater weight than anyone else. On the subject of quoting vast reams of the Wikipedia library of rules, traditions and practices at me, something which in itself IMHO is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia (done by more experienced editors to scare off others), you might like to consider the impact of some/ most of the rules on your own replies. Pit-yacker 18:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
And also, "(who whilst I doubt are the same person, appear to have a very close relationship)" is hilarious! L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 12:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed ownership is not issue, as far I am concerned I have claimed no ownership over any article. There is however the sentiment that if an infobox is imposed and I stress on impose, then the other party is claiming ownership on the said articles. If a project cannot make decision then projects are to be disolved as they are of no use. If how I understand it, projects are created to unite editors with common interests then you should respect our decisions not to join you. As far as I am concerned, local interests always outway larger, that is how WP work in general from what I have observed. Somone has to take the bâton, we have in this case accepted it and bear the burden of maintaining such articles, adding information; typed and written information not infoboxed and unformatted. Had it been done how it was done before the involvement of WP England, no infobox would have been implemented and none of this would have happened. We have relunctantly created a WP infobox for district articles we edit so as to fit in with the infobox trigger happy editors. You now expect us to accept another one, no, it doesn't work that way. Your party asked us our PoV, which I offered. You did not accept it and refuted it. What do I do? You ask for remarks that do not refer to. All along this has been a repetitive instance of bad faith, personal attacks I am held to account for when I am being judged (the essence of personal attacks) and my behaviour predicted (the essence of bad faith). I could open a request for comment on all of you, but I will not as I see it be of little use. I have said before: I do not accept this new infobox, as it stands the TfD is at best a no-concensus and the England infobox likely to remain. When it does, who will repopulate articles? Surely not you (that pit, MR, Jhamez et al.). I am told to look at ownership of articles, why should I? I have not claimed anything of the like and it is thrown at me, I have no concerns of ownership, I do not own any article more than the UK infobox party does. They claim boldness and so do I! Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 11:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
You keep using the term "we", I assume that is the "royal we" because I cant find any discussion about that. I would like to hear input from other members of the Sheffield Wikiproject think, rather than you in your self appointed role as "editor in chief" of "Wikipedia South Yorkshire". You seem to have taken it on yourself to oppose all infoboxes. You talk about ownership but in the same post refer to the fact that you think WikiProjects should have more say. As for feedback, the only feeback you have provided is a diatribe that you dont like the look of it and attack the hard work of others, nothing constructive at all. If you look through the talk pages, many others have had constructive criticsms, these have been addressed and they are more than happy with the dpeloyment of the new infobox. Your comrade Lewis Skinner has provided even less, just political speeches about "Westminsterisation" (whatever that is in the contexrt of Wikipedia) and even un-summarised reverts.
As for the England infobox, as I have said previously, I think the nomination for deleteion was a badly thoughtout attempt to try and pr=ove to you that there was a mandate to use the UK box. To my own mind the fact that it is in use on around 2700 articles without continual reversions is enough. Any save or no consensus will be purely down to an attempt to save the Scottish box and in no way give a mandate to say the England box should be restored. At that point, especially in light of no a no conensus vote, I would be minded that the England box should be nominated for deletion again on its own ASAP.

Pit-yacker 15:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I ask you not to call me the 'royal we' I don't take name calling from someone who quotes NPA. If complete rejection is a feedback you do not want to hear then do not ask for it. I do not attack 'your' hard work, I attack the product. You (that's your party of Infobox UK place makers) ask for feedback, I gave you feedback, which was an irrefutable no to its implementation. What makes that a less than valid feedback than 'yeah i love it, i want it printed and used as wallpaper in my bedroom', it doesn't. Simply 'you' do not want to take no for an answer and do not wish to receive no, modify, amend your process of implementation. If one feedback is not good enough, two isn't enough, then maybe the three feedbacks you have indirectly recived from WP:Sheffield is enough? I'm sure 'you' keep taps on the Sheffield place infobox TfD debate? Hmmmm. I am not responsible for Lewisskinner's contribution to this debate (i put it in italics since it's a one direction debate of wether you are right or I am wrong), he is disagreeing with your implemenation of the template of his own accord. We have not consorted nor spoken about it since our first encounter Pit. I do not have to provide constructive criticism. You asked for feedback, you got it. I asked you to halt implementation (I say halt not stop) which you denied, now you wonder why after what, 5 days or so, we're still at each other's throat. Every contribution, TfD, RfC you make makes conciliation more and more unlikely, we're bending backwards for you, make an effort on your side. 'You' just didn't expect anyone to oppose 'you' did you? Your implementation was made under the impresion that it would be welcome unilaterally wasn't it? The Uk infobox is fresh for deletion anyway, how many TfD can a Template go through? Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 15:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
By "Royal we" I mean the term "I". But I'm sure you knew that ;). What I am saying about constructive feedback is others say what they dont like about other than a childish and rather useless "it's crap". Others in Greater Manchester didnt like the first iteration of the local map. They said exactly what they thought, in some cases in forceful terms and these criticisms were taken on board. Look through endless other discussions for examples of this. I am yet to see 3 feedbacks from South Yorkshire rejecting the new box, perhaps I have missed something here? The only other feedback I have seen is from the creator of the Sheffield box who didnt seem to be fully aware that the UK box could do exactly what he asked. I'm yet to see him comment on the UK box directly. I would welcome more feedback from S Yorkshire, and will abide by the opinions. However, I do not regard your opinion on its own as consensus. Pit-yacker 15:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how Captain scarlet cannot understand that simply saying that "no to its implementation" is valid without explaining the reasoning behind this, is not helpful or an acceptable contribution to a discussion. I also fail to see any evidence of "we're bending backwards". I would suggest that simply refusing to discuss the template beyond dismissing it could certainly not be considered to be making a great effort towards resolving the issue. It does seem that the implementation of this template hasn't been "welcome unilaterally" but without appropriate feedback it is hard to see how your complete rejection of the template should be considered with any value.

I would welcome any RfC and invite Captain scarlet to do this if he feels it could be useful. I note however, how he views this, and many other Wikipedia processes with little confidence.

There are a number of other participants of WikiProject Sheffied listed, it would be interesting to know their opinions on this issue. Adambro 15:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha, sorry Adambro, i think you mistook the 'you' to include yourself... Hahaha, you is Pit yacker and co, not you. I think you know that and know why I'm telling you that Adambro... Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons
I'm unsure which reference to "you" it is that I am misunderstanding to include me, I also don't understand why you feel the need to tell me that as you suggest I do. Maybe you could help me with that along with providing comments on the points I raised. Also, may I suggest you ensure you are familiar with the purpose of an edit summary, see Help:Edit summary. Adambro 16:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
What is there to say, I do view processes surrounding Wikipedia politics with little confidence... What kind of edit summary do you want other than reply? This is a talk page, I would do little esle than replying to one or another. I quite like putting Edit summary, it makes you talk. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 16:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New articles

There's an experiment at User:AlexNewArtBot to automatically find new articles which are of interest to a specific WikiProject. I've created a ruleset for Sheffield at User:AlexNewArtBot/Sheffield, and new articles should appear listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sheffield/New articles. Please feel free to add new keywords to the ruleset (instructions at User:AlexNewArtBot, or ask me, and give feedback on its accuracy. Warofdreams talk 03:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hands up who would like a new map?

I'm just acting as the messenger here, so in the proverbial sense dont shoot me, and I wont make further contribution to this debate. My point is so the whole WikiProject is aware and can arrive at a proper consensus rather than the decision being made for you. User:Jhamez84 has offered to produce a new map for the Sheffield/South Yorkshire area similar to those used by Tyne&Wear], West Midlands, Greater Manchester, and London (in addition to others which are indevelopment). User talk:Lewisskinner has accepted this offer. However, Captain scarlet has reprimanded Lewis for this. No one else has brought this forward to the Project even though they wish it to be discussed further and I see little point in Jhamez wasting his time producing a map if it is going to thrown back in his face. So the question is: Do the people of the WikiProject want a clearer map? Pit-yacker 18:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

For god's sake you gotta stop accusing me. Would I not know you guys better I'd think you and Jhamez are the same person. I asked Lewis to consult with the project first, while Jhamez is off on his merry way creating god knows what. As far as I am concerned a map is already available Sheffield as well as a template {{Infobox Sheffield place}}, I trust Joshurtree (talk • contribs)'s work fits fine. Maybe I can repeat my dislike of template UK place again, that much hasn't changed. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 19:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
This user (Captain Scarlet) has just threatened me on Lewis's page with an argument simply for offering to help. This, combined with the above means quite frankly, this map can wait. Sorry to the wider WikiProject, but I'm not being victimised like this. Jhamez84 21:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
No i didn't silly. I asked to not confer in private so that the whole project were able to participate. I asked you not to repeat an implementation before accord. You're victimising yourself when I have nothing against you, but something against your product, however the length of time you've put in it, I do not find it satisfactory. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 21:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
It's for the wider community to decide not me, not you. I was asked to produce a map by a member of this project. I was asking him to clarify what division of land he meant and you imeadiately threatened me with an arguement and accused me of forcing a product upon people that doesn't even exist without Lewis to even reply. You're a fantasist and a bully; can't wait for the Sheffield template to go. Jhamez84 21:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Funny, I thought that you, MRSC, Pityacker were bullying me into accepting your template by TfDing, posting messages on project pages, my talk page, other members' talk pages, RfC... On the other hand, calling me a fantasist and a buly is a personal attack. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 21:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about infoboxes, but I do like the Greater Manchester and Greater London location maps that Jhamez84 has produced. There isn't really a 'Greater Sheffied' area, however South Yorkshire would be good. —JeremyA (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm with JeremyA here. Our current map is ok, and certainly more useful than a dot on a map of England or the whole UK, but the Greater Manchester and Greater London maps are much prettier and more informative. So I suspect that a similar map of South Yorkshire would be ideal. Warofdreams talk 02:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
In reference to User:Captain scarlet's comment that "calling me a fantasist and a buly is a personal attack", I must agree. As such I have warned Jhamez84 and asked him to remember WP:NPA. Please all be civil. Adambro 21:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
There is a Greater Sheffield area (although not legally) with includes Eckington, Dronfield, Chesterfield, Worksop, Bolsover and (some would consider) Hope Valley. I know this is not an administrative region, but these areas are so closely allied to Sheffield, would it be worth including them? L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 13:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
That depends on what the map is for. If it is to be used in the United Kingdom place infobox, then I think that the South Yorkshire one (below) is the better option. If for placing districts of Sheffield on a map then I don't know whether a new map is even necessary because the infobox that we had for districts was deleted—personally I don't think that the United Kingdom place infobox should be used on districts of Sheffield (most of them are not separate entities, and have no official existence) so making one specific for Sheffield would, to me, seem surplus to requirements. I also think that inventing a Greater Sheffield region verges on original research and would be regarded as highly POV by the likes of people in Dronfield, for example. —JeremyA (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Can I make a sugestion here? If you take a look at some of the entries for Cheshire, particularly in the Vale Royal district or borough of the county, you will see a map outlining all the civil parishes conatined in the district, with the particular article's civil parish highlighted. (For examples, see Northwich, Anderton with Marbury, Marston.) We are (slowly) in the process of doing this for most places within Cheshire. It might be possible to include a similar map with the different locally-understood "districts of Sheffield" outlined, and any desired particular one highlighted. It could be placed in a suitable section of an article, perhaps dealing with local administration. Worth a consideration?  DDStretch  (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
That system works quite well, and might be suitable for Sheffield. However, I know that Manchester districts use the Greater Manchester map, and this also works quite well (see Didsbury, Moston, Moss Side or Ancoats as examples - even Manchester City Centre I think works very well!). I guess it depends on the systems and frames in place in Sheffield. Jhamez84 14:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The problem with Sheffield is that it is very hard to define the boundaries of the various districts, That is why, when I started with Wikipedia two years ago, I grouped all the district articles into articles on the political wards (see Ecclesall, for example). The council,or maybe the OS, may have some official definition of district boundaries that I don't know about, but then both mark Beauchief as Abbeydale, which many people who actually live there would be quite surprised to learn  :-) —JeremyA (talk) 14:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
(edit confllict) I think my own idea is that the system we use in Cheshire (see examples above) are mainly for civil parish articles, or articles that combine together settlement or places information with civil parish information, because it allows the extent of the civil parish to be shown. For primarily settlement-type articles, I think the various maps used with the red dot are very good. I can see a use for both types, actually (as in most of the uses that currently exist within Cheshire), and it depends on the purposes needed in each article.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, but Sheffield is almost entirely unparished! Yeah, I see what you're saying - we have the same system but with electoral wards. See Stannington for example. L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 14:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the map/infobox we currently have on (for example) West Ecclesfield or Darnall is fine, but there's no reason with the new SY map with a pin marker cannot be placed on Crookes, Attercliffe or Handsworth, South Yorkshire. Indeed, as you say, whilst the boarders of many districts are difficult to define, the centres are usually very easy, and all it takes is a zoom in on multimap, input the coordinates, and (assuming Jhamez84 can manage the syntax!) the pin drops right onto Crookes/Handsworth/wherever centre!L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 14:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The map/marker pin on these articles would be OK. But I think that the UK place infobox would be over the top for them, however, without that infobox I can't see how the marker pin system could be implemented without reinventing the Sheffield place infobox. —JeremyA (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
As a point of information Template:Location map Sheffield still exists (although, IMHO as someone outside Sheffield it isnt much use - there is absolutely nothing for me to get my barings from). The way the UK infobox works is to transclude the relevant type of Template:Location map. In this case the proposal is to create a Template:Location map South Yorkshire. Location map can be used sans an infobox. See Lindisfarne in "GBthumb" style. Pit-yacker 15:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Sorry for showing my ignorance—I hadn't had the need up until recently to investigate how these location maps were being done. I would have no problem with using the South Yorkshire map (sans infobox) as a location map for Sheffield districts in the manner of Lindisfarne. —JeremyA (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] South Yorkshire map

Map of South Yorkshire, for possible use in South Yorkshire article infoboxes.
Map of South Yorkshire, for possible use in South Yorkshire article infoboxes.

I've gone ahead and made a South Yorkshire map, thumbnailed here to the left. I'm inclined to stick with ceremonial counties for infoboxes to obtain national consistency. I also think this geographic reference frame is most famillar with, and helpful to, readers of the articles, as well as being legally defined. However, I'd be happy to create a Greater Sheffield map for use on the Greater Sheffield article, in a simillar way the 020 (UK dial code) article has a modified Greater London map.

As to whether this map is used in South Yorkshire articles, as the maker, I think it would be great of course, but it would have to be upto, in part, members of this WikiProject, as well as the UK place template group amoungst others. Hope it is well recieved. Jhamez84 14:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. Could you give an example of how it would work in an infobox for, say Treeton or Brinsworth (I tried adding it to the Treeton article, but obviously I don't understand the innerworkings of the UK place infobox). Thanks, —JeremyA (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
It's a complicated process to set these up with a dynamic marker, so I'm hoping to obtain any appraisals and/or concerns first here before putting it to the UK place template talk page, and sitting down working out the co-ordinates. Also, I know I've had messages in the not too distant past from one user who vowed to revert inclusion of any map I've made for this area of England, which is a shame. Are there any other objections or thoughts first before it is trialled? Jhamez84 14:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that use on places like Treeton, Brinsworth, and Penistone is probably undisputed. As I understand it the dispute would relate more to using the UK place infobox at say Dore or Totley. —JeremyA (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
There is little dispute to be made, Jhamez got his way and deleted our template, off course I oppose the implementation of UK infobox for the same reason I opposed the England Infobox in the first place. The Sheffield palce infobox was created to remove thez need for an unecessarily large and repetitive infobox, even though the ideal would be to have none altogether, we've gone back to that point, no there is nothing else to do but write content, infoboxes are the lazyman's friend. But why do I bother, It's going to be put in anyway... Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 15:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
As I said, the dispute relates only to places that would previously have used the Sheffield place infobox. The places that I mentioned as undisputed are not in Sheffield and so would never have used that infobox (and they aren't really within the scope of this Wikiproject). —JeremyA (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
--Just for the record I didn't delete the Sheffield infobox, nor did I even nominate it for deletion. A collective of editors agreed upon a consensus, then an administrator deleted it. Jhamez84 15:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree, map looks good! As for your offer to work on a map for Greater Sheffield. Well, it's gotta be better than my attempt was! What would you use as the "black line" and "red shading" eqivalents as used on the dialing code map? L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 14:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll take a look at the source materal and find out! Jhamez84 14:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes Jhamez, the user would be me. That's one objection Jhamez84. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 14:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
On what grounds? Jhamez84 15:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
On the grounds of you asking if any objections exist, at least one does. Got it? Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 15:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
No I haven't got it. Now I'm asking for the grounds with which you are objecting? Is it inaccurate for example? We can put this to a straw poll if you like? Jhamez84 15:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
No I wouldn't like, I'd like it if you took that template of yours, deleted it and brought back ours. Maybe you din't personally nominate the Sheffield place infobox but you+Pit-yacker+MRSC=UK infobox clan so whoever edits what doesn't matter as they'll the same. I cofounded this project hoping that Sheffield related articles would benefit from the coordinated efforts of members of such project and I will do anything to get rid of your template as i do not see it to be fit anywhere. Once again you asked for opinions, here it is: trash your template. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 17:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Even if doing so is at the expensive of a readers experience of Wikipedia? "trash your template" is not an opinion, merely a statement supported by no reasoning which does little to help. I must ask that instead of calling for the template to be deleted, you work with other editors to discuss any concerns you have about it. Adambro 18:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Every single thing Adambro, since the beginning I have said that almost all its content is unappropriate. Why the hell do you think Sheffield place was created in the first place? You are trying my patience! Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 18:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me, helps readers understand the location of a place both regionally and nationally. Adambro 16:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I had a first pass at calibrating it--the results are in my sandbox —JeremyA (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
This new map looks really good, and JeremyA's calibrations looks spot on. Great work! Warofdreams talk 18:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. The graphic itself is the easy part, the calibrations are the toughest bit! Credit due to JeremyA for this! If the Project is happy to go ahead with this.... I wouldn't like to make the move to upload it to the Template:Infobox UK place. Jhamez84 18:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
AFAICT, User:JeremyA has already done that. See Treeton. Pit-yacker 20:34, 30 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 11:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Satellite photos etc.

As doubt has been expressed regarding links to WIKIMAPIA satellite photos and as I doubt many users will pay attention to the top right hand corner links generated by the coord dms option, I've included an external link (in addition to coord dms). Any comments?

Do you think this is a good option to implement for the Sheffield sub items in general?

This is the code I used:-

____________________________
Sheffield Winter Gardens

*[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/geo/geohack.php?params=53.379849_N_1.467997_W_scale:1000 Satellite photo/map options for this location (tools.wikipedia.de)]

{{coor title dms|53.379849|||N|1.467997|||W|scale:1000}}

____________________________

Sheffield Town Hall

*[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/geo/geohack.php?params=53.379994_N_1.469446_W_scale:1000 Satellite photo/map options (tools.wikipedia.de)]

{{coor title dms|53.379994|||N|1.469446|||W|scale:1000}}


cheers, Wikityke 15:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Maybe 'Maps/Satellite photos of this location' is all that is needed as the wording for the link —Jeremy (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Districts of Sheffield-terminology change needed?

Shortly after Districts of Sheffield was created, the use of the word district was questioned. Although we have left it like this for a while now with no further problems, I have started wondering whether Neighbourhoods of Sheffield would be a more appropriate name for this article. Perhaps even Sub-divisions of Sheffield would be the most accurate name, but I don't like it. Thoughts/suggestions? Thanks, —Jeremy (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spring clean needed for the Sheffield article

Listening to the new spoken word version of the Sheffield article it is apparent that some cleanup is needed. There are various stats and surveys that are out of date, and some parts of the article are written like it is still 2005. I think that the music section is in particularly desperate need of cleanup. As it stands I think that the article could be de-featured unless some remedial work is done. —Jeremy (talk) 20:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Sheffield_d70f.html"