User talk:Richard B

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. You may want to take a look at the welcome page, tutorial, and stylebook, avoiding common mistakes and Wikipedia is not pages.

I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers such as yourself:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 21:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PBC

Hey Richard B, just wanted to explain that I coxed Peterhouse 1st VIII in the Lent Bumps of 1997, and spent four years at the college. It is never, ever referred to as Peterhouse College, so that's why I've removed it from the PBC page. Hope you agree. Budgiekiller 22:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

OK fine. Richard B 23:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Statutory Instruments in the United Kingdom 1996

Do you really think your list of Statutory instruments in the United Kingdom 1996 can be turned into an encyclopedic article?? How?? Georgia guy 20:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I saw the article's Afd and found out that you are trying to convince Wikipedians how much sense it makes for your article to be kept. Who else does this?? Georgia guy 01:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. This is the first AFD discussion I've been involved with, so sorry if I'm going against conventions by putting a case forward. Richard B 01:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Considering Afd is supposed to be a discussion about whether an article or list is to be kept, Richard's "convincing" is fine. It isn't a vote, wikipedia is not a democracy. Kurando | ^_^ 09:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I noticed the work on the SI lists. You've saved me a lot of work on those. Now we just have to stop the AFD process from steamrollering all of your hard work. When considering that process bear in mind that we are talking about something that has become what many consider a cancer on Wikipedia. There are those who actually go round and nominate things just for spite. I don't know whether that was done for this list but some of the comments on the AFD section tend to make me think that might be the case. A lot of those comments are the typical ignorance that plagues AFD. For example saying that "by definition" SIs are non-notable! That's enormous ignorance at work, but such ignorance does not stop many of those on AFD. For what it's worth I've put an extended section into there rebutting a lot of the nonsense that has been spouted and pointing out that the nonsense is actually contrary to Wikipedia's declared deletion policy. David Newton 17:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know, in case you're not aware, we've beaten the AFD nomination for the SI list from 1996. David Newton 15:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've just seen that. A win for common sense. I've not been here that long (a few months) but already I've seen some perfectly good and reasonable articles get deleted, seemingly on the basis of momentum from the first couple of posts on the AFD discussion. Now we have to think about how we want the data on this article to be presented. Prob. best to discuss this on the actual article's talk page. Richard B 17:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been updating the SI pages again recently. At the moment I'm trying to get as many pre-1987 SIs in there as possible. I'm also trying to keep the 2006 page up to date (as it is manageable to update things each day as the things are published). Any help you could provide would be greatly appreciated. David Newton 23:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Discussion

Hi. I notice that you have previously voted or commented on the proposal to delete the List of Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom, 1996 page. The debate about the delete proposal ended with no consensus. This is just to let you know that I have started a discussion on how to go forward from here. I am currently trying to define what the problems with the page are so that we can try to find a fix for them that stops short of outright deletion. If you wish to take part in the discussion, the new debate can be found here. Thank you. Road Wizard 23:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, I am just bumping this up your watch list in case you haven't spotted it yet. The discussion has already started about what to do with the List of Statutory Instruments pages, but as those who voted for deletion are the only ones to respond so far, it is a little one sided. As you are one of the principal editors involved in SIs, I would really appreciate your input in trying to find a solution. Given that the 1996 page barely scraped through last time with votes stipulating that change was necessary, I don't think it will survive another nomination for deletion. I hope to hear from you soon. Thanks. Road Wizard 01:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Links

How did you manage to remove all those links from the List of Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom, 1996 page so fast? You did in 8 minutes what it took me 2 hours to do on the rest of the list. I will be glad to hear your answer, as it will be a great help when we go on to removing links from the remaining pages. Thanks. Road Wizard 14:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I created a spreadsheet - all of the links are in a certain format with a constant, or nearly constant length (although the format changes between some of the years), and you can manipulate the data pretty easily like that (by snipping bits of text i.e. the link part - and then adding the SI yyyy/nnnn). All I needed to do was drag it down, then paste into wiki. It's how the page was created in the first place. I've un-linked 1995 now. Do the rest of them need un-linking? Richard B 14:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The rest of the pages will probably need unlinking at some point, but it might be worth waiting to see what comes of the discussion first. Thanks. Road Wizard 14:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Award

The Original Barnstar
Just came across your fantastic work on the May Bumps articles! the wub "?!" 17:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A50 Correction

You were right. The old A50 into Leicester is still there. In my time in this area the A50 has finished in Northampton since 1975ish. However I now find with interest it once extended to Hockcliffe, even further south.

Barrie Hughes

If you fancy looking at SABRE's original 1922 road list, you'll find the original desinations and waypoints of every 1,2 & 3 digit A-road in the original road numbering. Interestingly, the A50 originally went only to Leicester, then was extended to Hockliffe in the 60s, then lost the Northants to Hockliffe bit, then lost the Northants to Leicester section later. Richard B 21:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bumps articles

Well done on the work you've done on the Bumps and Boat Club articles. Looks like you've got the bulk of things done, but if you ever find you need a hand with updating these or whatever in the future, I'd be happy to help out. Robotforaday 11:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of rowing blades

Have you see this page? --evrik 17:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No I haven't, but I can add to it quite a bit when I get time Richard B 18:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor Planet Numbers

I've seen that you've been rather vigilant in adding information on all the minor planet numbers to many objects. I'm curious as to the validity of these assertions. I've stated on the Talk:Pluto page that I don't think the MPEC is notable. Do we have other information besides the MPEC that says that 2003 UB313 really has the desigination of that number? (please reply on my talk page) McKay 03:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, We got it discussed and taken care of on Talk:Pluto. Thanks McKay 13:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roads in the United Kingdom

Richard,

On my talk page you made a tentative suggestion about setting up a Motorways Project. Would a more general UK roads project be something you would be interested in joining? I am in the process of categorising all the roads into constiuent nation and counties, but many of the pages remain a mess that needs sorting out! Some of them have been directly lifted from SABRE and some are just one line descriptions. The US highways seem to be well organised, ours are not!

Regan123 16:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, now that you've improved most of the m'way articles - most of the A-road articles are probably most in need of improvement! Richard B 08:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Richard. Have you come across anyone else who might be interested in forming a project? There are a couple of people I have seen who have been editing that I could contact. Regan123 23:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SVG Blades

Hi Richard

Both Commons:Image:Emmanuel Rowing Blade.svg and Commons:Image:Jesus College Cambridge Rowing Blade.svg were invalid xml (missing </g>.) I have fixed them for you. p.s. you can use Mozilla Firefox to view the SVG to check it before you upload it.

Gary van der Merwe (Talk) 09:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blades with diamonds

Hi Richard.

Would you say that my design for Christ's College Blade is correct? I.e. is it correct that the top and bottom diamond are completely visible?

What about Pembroke College and Sidney Sussex College ?

Gary van der Merwe (Talk) 09:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the Emma & Jesus blades. They looked ok when I tried in Adobe viewer. I believe your Christ's one is pretty much correct.
Christ's is the one in the foreground in this photo
Pembroke is roughly how I've depicted it, with half of the diamond cut off at top and bottom of the blade (although I've got the diamond facing the wrong way, oops). See this photo (colours slightly washed out on the bowside blades).
Sidney are I think similar to Christ's, but with smaller diamonds, see hereRichard B 12:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject: Rowing

I've noticed you're an avid rower, and thought you might be interested in joining the rowing project I just started: Wikipedia:WikiProject Rowing. It seemed to me rowing was a big enough category to warrant a project of its own, and a lot of the articles could do with some work. At the moment I'm trying to recruit some members and add the project template to all the articles. Just add your name to the member list if you are interested. --The Spith 17:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Motorway Zone Map

Hi Richard. I have been putting your excellent A road zone map onto the road list pages. It got me thinking about whether or not we should have one for the motorways as they have a distinct set of zones. I am probably being cheeky here, but would it be possible for you to draw one if you get five minutes? My drawing skills are fairly poor and I couldn't come close to the quality on yours. Cheers, Regan123 00:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I do have one somewhere. I'll see if I can dig it out.Richard B 00:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to drag up an old thread, but I wondered if you'd got this map. I have just created a Roads in the United Kingdom article and once I've move the relevant stuff out of Great Britain road numbering scheme page I would like to beef up and reference that as well. Regan123 (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi mate. Thanks for the reply. Could you upload the map as your work (pain the backside copyright rules and all that)? Also, maybe you would like to join us at WP:UKROADS? Regan123 (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for joining the Cheshire WikiProject

Just a quick note to thank you for joining the Cheshire WikiProject. I hope we can all make the project become a good one, producing high quality articles which reach Featured Article status. Please feel free to help out if you are able to and want to.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox local maps

Hi! Thanks for the contact. I think you raise some important issues.

The problem with maps, is they are inheritly inaccurate; different maps from different sources I've found, always have discrepencies. Plus, the methods used for line-marking also bring with them issues of inaccuracies. I think the ones so far are a vast improvement on the previous versions.

For the maps I've produced (I'm not a proffessional cartographer by any means), I've used a selection of source material and super-imposed different layers upon each other. I've generally used the boundary commission for England's county maps for county and borough boundaries, together with Google maps for urban areas and motorways. However, I've also searched other online sources for rivers and so on.

Your tests also may be using outdated longitude and latitude settings, though I'm not sure. I know the Cheshire map is by far the most inaccurate I've made because I used a poor source, but I do intend to fix this asap. Also, because the Earch is curved (of course), the pointer is often a little off, though this is an inherent and unilateral problem with 2D maps.

You also mention you're keen on producing some maps for other areas. I'm keen to have a consistent style across at least England, if not the UK. Do you have Adobe Illustrator and Adobe Photoshop? I could list some pantones and instructions?

Hope that helps somewhat? Jhamez84 13:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I should've added that, per your suggestions, I intended to create, and have indeed uploaded a newer, more detailed and more accurate version of the Cheshire map. Hopefully, with some testing, this should remove the failings of the previous version. Thanks again for the contact, Jhamez84 01:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the contact. The map list is a great idea! I've almost finished Merseyside now. I'll double check the motorway blue pantone. Jhamez84 19:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Golf Newsletter

The WikiProject Golf Newsletter
Issue IV - May 2007
If you would like to improve our future newsletters, go to our newsletter page.
Project News
  • I am experimenting with a new layout for easy readability, as well as to make the newsletter look more attractive and more like other ones. If someone feels it could be better, go right ahead and change it. The newsletter page is right here.
  • An assessment department has been set up. To find out how to assess an article, go to the assessment page.
  • I have asked Snowolf if his bot could help in tagging articles. The response is still pending, but hopefully we will soon have more of an idea of how many articles we have.
  • During the two months since the last newsletter, Annika Sorenstam has reached good article status. Congratulations to all who worked on this article.
  • There has been a recent peer review for Jack Nicklaus. Please help by following the suggestions that are shown here.
  • A new sidebar has been created. If you think it could be improved, go here.
  • Several new templates have been created. Go to the templates page for a full list.
Article Statistics
Golf
articles		 Importance
Top High Mid Low None Total
Quality
Featured article FA
A 1 1
Good article GA 2 2
B 10 1 11
Start 30 3 2 6 1 42
Stub 11 3 11 73 2 100
Assessed 54 6 13 80 3 156
Unassessed 0 0 0 0 1269 1269
Total 54 6 13 80 1272 1425
New Members

Welcome to all the new members over the past two months!

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

[edit] Re: Preston Council Elections

Many thanks for filling in the Preston election article for 2007. I have little access to computers at the moment so your help on completing my start is really appriciated. Thanks :)

doktorb wordsdeeds 09:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Closest pairs of first-magnitude stars

At Talk:Alpha Centauri#Closest Pair people are asking for a source for the statement "Alpha and Beta Centauri are the second closest pair of first magnitude stars as seen from the Earth, and due to the effects of proper motion, they will become the closest pair around 2166, overtaking Acrux and Becrux."

I tried searching in vain for an online references for this. Then searching for online planetaria, I got [1] but found it might be difficult for me to prove magnitudes of angular distances using this (also the map for 4000 years from now at [2] differs from the one at Alpha Centauri#Apparent movement as Alpha is shown at opposite sides of Beta on the 2 maps. I also found calculations using RA and Dec and proper motion values too tedious for me.

Hence taking the easy way out, I found that the source of that statement is [3] (luckily by someone still around in the 'pedia), and here I am! Can you provide some reference or proof for the above statement? Thanks! -- Paddu 21:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re Moons of planets templates

Hi Richard,

...I noticed that all of them were in the collapsed state by default - with the rationale that this is necessary for the template Template:Natural satellites of the Solar System ... However, on looking at this latter template, when you press "show", it expands everything, including all of the transcluded templates ... I can't, therefore, see why it is necessary that the transcluded templates are collapsed.

Thanks for pointing out this oversight and prompting me to revisit the "Moons of X" templates within {{Natural satellites of the Solar System}}; after a little reformatting, the former should be expanded by default but collapsed when within the latter. Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox county maps

Apologies in not rolling out the English county maps I had promised to do so some time ago - I've had to have a small break. However, I will be increasing my efforts in the forthcoming weeks and months and should get back on track again! Just thought I'd keep you in the loop as you were very supportive during the project. Jhamez84 17:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's alright, I've not been able to roll out one or two that I'd hoped to either yet. Richard B 22:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Location maps

Would you consider dual-licensing your contributions to {{Location map}} and related templates under the cc-by 2.5 license so i could use them on the english wikinews? Happy editing. Bawolff 00:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed constituency maps

Looks like I never followed up the final proposals. I'll get onto it and let you know - it may take a few days.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 22:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:TyneWearParliamentaryConstituenciesProposed.png, Image:SouthYorkshireParliamentaryConstituenciesProposed.png, Image:WestYorkshireParliamentaryConstituenciesProposed.png and Image:GreaterManchesterParliamentaryConstituenciesProposed.png are ready.--18:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

- and finally Image:LondonParliamentaryConstituenciesProposed.png. Do you know what the plans are for replacing old constituency level maps with new ones as we approach the next general election (it may be earlier than you think). Presumably a complete new set will be needed because even where a constituency hasn't changed itself, its neighbours in its county will have. Constituencies with new names are currently showing unresolved image links.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 19:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC) (a Trinity man who never left Cambridge!)

Thanks for these. I'm going to give it a go and produce SVG versions of at least some. I'm not sure what the plans are, but yes, I'd have thought most will need a complete new set. Richard B 21:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Age Template

Thanks so much for directing me to the Wikipedia template that calculates age. That is exactly what I was looking for ... and it will be extremely useful. Thanks a million! (Joseph A. Spadaro 17:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC))

No problem. For interest though, rather than simply checking that the numbers are correct, you could convert that page to use the template perhaps. I've had a go at the first half, to show you what the page might look like if you did convert. For the next few days, it'll be visible on my sandbox Richard B 10:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gowy By-Election

I have had to re-insert your deletion a reference to this on the West Cheshire Council page, as it is a by election for the County Council (not the City Council as you had claimed) as there is a reference to County Council seat distribution in the article, there must be a reference for this by-election, or information regarding the seats must be discarded for reasons of accuracy. As the article makes an accurate attempt to determine notional control of the new authority, I personally would prefer the former. Thank You Seivad 12:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC).

The title on the election box said "Chester city council", so that's where I got that from.
I have kept a reference to the by-election, but any results of the by-election should go on the Cheshire local elections page, not the page about the unitary authority (which is a proposed region with a political make-up, not a page about a council). Remember also, that notional results, even in general elections, do usually discard the results of by-elections. For instance, the constituency of Dunfermline and West Fife will be treated as a Labour held seat at the next general election, despite the Dunfermline and West Fife by-election, 2006 in which the Liberal Democrats won the seat from Labour.
My personal preference is to follow this convention, and use the 2005 election results, but if the Gowy seat does change hands, mention that this has happened. The detailed results of the by-election, however, do not belong on the City of Chester and West Cheshire page. Richard B 19:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of data

Please do not remove coordinates from articles, as you did here; see the external links for examples of their usefulness. Thank you. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 13:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss this with the rest of the Motorway wikiproject. I think they should be in the same format as with the M62 Motorway article, i.e. with the motorway hcard template. Not every junction needs coordinates, as they just clutter up the template. These should be used for major junctions and perhaps services as well. Richard B 13:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I repeat: please see the external links for examples of their usefulness. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 13:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)]
I repeat Please discuss this with others. Richard B 13:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
"I repeat" - so you do; overlooking the fact that I raised the issue there ten days ago (nobody responded) and that I have been discussing coordinates for linear features elsewhere. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 13:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Hold on a sec, if you look at the "discussion" on that page, you suggest looking at the M62 page. On the M62 motorway page, we have exactly the situation as I described above. Coordinates for the major junctions and services only, using the motorway hcard template. I have no problems whatsoever with this format. Every junction is excessive, as per the discussions at Talk:M6 motorway#coordinatesRichard B 13:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Golf

Hi Richard B
I thought that a way to further improve the golf articles on Wikipedia is for the whole project to work together towards a goal. An example of this could be a certain number of good articles in so many months, or to create the project's first ever featured article. If you are interested, come to the talk page and discuss it. And hopefully through this the project can continue to work towards several goals in the near future. Grover 10:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invite to discuss goals for WP:Golf

You are invited. Go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Golf#Goals. michfan2123 15:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Bumps chart 16

A tag has been placed on Template:Bumps chart 16 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Bumps chart 9

A tag has been placed on Template:Bumps chart 9 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rochdale Council election, 2008

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Rochdale Council election, 2008, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?  Atyndall93 | talk  12:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Your articles on Rochdale elections.

I do not believe that your articles on rochdale elections meet Wikipedia's notability criteria (WP:N) and as such have been nominated for deletion. They do not meet notability guidelines due to lack of sources and significant news coverage in reliable publications. Thankyou.  Atyndall93 | talk  12:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Significant news coverage? They will be reported on in national TV coverage, and every UK national newspaper, and all of the local papers. Richard B (talk) 12:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
You mention that such elections will be placed in national UK newpapers but you do not provide any sources to show this for the elections previous to 2008 which there would presumably information if they are indeed notable. What source of information are you using to write these election articles?  Atyndall93 | talk  12:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The source is stated at the bottom, see the Rochdale.gov.uk link. These are future elections, so only the nominations are known at the moment. Also, please see the categories. This falls under the brush of United Kingdom local elections, 2008. Perhaps see the BBC website, where full results will no doubt be available, once the elections have happened. Richard B (talk) 12:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
What I am trying to say is that articles like Rochdale Council election, 1998 are long gone and do not have inline citations.  Atyndall93 | talk  12:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, they need some tidyup. I didn't, of course, write that article - see the history. You are best trying to contact the people who did. I assure you they will have a multitude of reliable sources. Inline sources are not going to fit in well with this type of article however. It's better in this case to have references separately at the bottom.Richard B (talk) 13:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I might try doing that tomorrow.  Atyndall93 | talk  13:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I notice someone has just added a couple of refs to the 1998 election page, must by psychic! Richard B (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)