Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 →

Contents

Infobox template for Places

A number of entries for small towns, villages and such like, eg Edgware, Pinner, Ashford, Surrey, include an infobox that contains some fairly standardized information.

I noticed that most of these were included as in-line tables. As this is pretty messy, I've created a template Template:Infobox England Place, in an attempt to make this stuff easier to maintain and more consistent. See Great Casterton for an example of it in use.

  • Is this template a good or bad thing?
  • Any suggestions for a better name for the template?
  • Should it be England or UK? (I'm not sure whether all the captions are applicable to NI, Scotland and Wales. Should there be similar but different templates for them.)
  • Any other suggestions?

80N 17:07, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Well, first off, it should be "Template:Infobox England place". :-)
Secondly, it doesn't apply to some places in England that come to mind (well, London, and other places that don't have a county any more), but I think that, in as much as it applies to England, it also applies to the "Nations" of Scotland and Wales and "Part" of Northern Ireland.
James F. (talk) 17:30, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I believe that all the places that do not have associated counties are unitary authorities so an acceptable entry in the 'County' field would be 'Unitary authority'. --Theo (Talk) 18:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Most unitary authorities are part of a ceremonial county even if they are not administered by any county council. In the case of unitary authorities, it might be sensible to use that instead. But put 'ceremonial county' instead of just 'county'. It would probably be best to put 'unitary authority' in the district bit. G-Man 21:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Most of the places where this layout has already been used (eg Pinner) are actually in London, and Greater London has been used as the value in these cases. 80N 18:57, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Greater London is a ceremonial county. G-Man 21:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A field for 'Parliamentary constituency' would be an enhancement IMHO. --Theo (Talk) 18:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good idea, and quite timely. 80N 18:57, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Another thing, It might be better to put 'Historic County' instead of 'Traditional County', as this may be less misleading to the, uninformed. G-Man 21:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

'Historical County', maybe, since we are recording the past name as opposed to only the notabe or memorable name. [Nitpicking difference between 'historic' and 'historical'.] "Pre-1974 County" might be the most explicit, of course. --Theo (Talk) 23:20, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Also perhaps worth adding Wildlife Recording Area - these are mostly the same as the Trad Counties, but not invariably so - MPF 22:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've renamed the template as Template:infobox England place as suggested. I've not changed the captions for counties as these all have links to pages of those names that all seem to be well defined - It's beyond my job grade to start messing with those definitions :-)

I've added Constituency and reworked the OS and Map links a bit.

Finally I've updated the template's talk page with instructions on how to use it and a section for discussion which does have a link to here, but any future discussion can be done directly on the template's talk page (if anyone cares enough).

Thanks for everyone's input. Next job is to start adding the template to all those um... 26,267... places in England... 80N 13:24, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

I've done Grendon - one down...Brookie 07:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Excellent, every little helps :-) But, now I realise that I'm going to have to make the instructions for use a bit clearer!!! Suggestions anyone? 80N 20:26, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

I have just started Template:oscoor - see below. Rather than launch it boldly by changing the gbmap… templates, I have started modestly with Template:infobox England place. NB. The link looks horrible on the Template:infobox England place definition page but it does work - just the Wiki software ain't too happy (at this particular level) with nested templates. If this meets with approval, I think we could take the old-maps link out of the infobox - it is available on the Map sources page instead. This would make the infobox easier to use - no need to provide the grid ref in two different formats. If a specific link to old-maps is needed in any particular article, it can be done using GBvosi. -- RHaworth 05:13, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

Status, etc.

It would be good if we could have some more information in the template, especially population, latitude/longitude, and status (ie, village, town, city). Also, we need to be able to have a little image space, if you look at Newbury, Berkshire the map with the dot which many places now have has been integrated into the table. This might cause problems for places without the dot though... -- Joolz 15:50, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Maybe there should be separate templates for towns, villages, hamlets, etc. There's already a specific template for hills and another for landmarks, I think. I chose the term place because I wanted it to be non-specific and usable for any old place that wasn't covered by some more specific template (such as county, region, constituency, city, etc). I don't see why there cannot be an Infobox England town template. 80N 23:23, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure that that's neccessary, we could just add a 'Lat/Lon' row, a 'Status' row and a 'Population' row. For integrating the dot-maps into the infobox we would have to create a separate infobox - 'Infobox England place with location map' for instance so we can accomodate places with and without them. -- Joolz 00:13, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Latitude and longitude are not needed. I have already proposed dropping the old-maps line to simplify the specification of coordinates. Adding lat/long just adds unnecessary complications. Assuming the use of {{oscoor}} is accepted, then the Map Sources page to which it links contains a conversion of Grid Ref to Lat/Long. -- RHaworth 04:58, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
  • The dot-maps are a long way from being a standard Wikipedia feature - see Lupin's talk page. For the time being, the simple solution is separate with/without templates. But we can also start lobbying for someone to develop a script/engine to generate these dot maps dynamically. -- RHaworth 04:58, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

Dialling codes

The format e.g. +44-1780 as currently used in the infobox looks very odd (hyphens are never used in UK telephone numbers). The generally used format in the UK, when showing the international prefix, is e.g. +44 (0)1780. Would anyone object if I changed them? -- Picapica 5 July 2005 08:43 (UTC)

Agree that it looks very odd. BT quotes local UK dialling codes as 01780, and uses spaces (but no zeroes) in international numbers as +44 1780. Vodafone appears to follow your format - although they have an extra space: +44 (0) 1780. And people using the +44 format in their mobiles don't have the zero either. Should we have both local dialling code 01780 and international dialling code +44 1780 in the template as two separate entries perhaps? Mpntod July 5, 2005 09:40 (UTC)

Well, +44 (0)1780 -- with or without a space after the (0), more often without, I would say -- is, of course, the compromise format combining national code 01780 and international code +44 1780. It is widely used as such by British companies (my own employer, for one) in international correspondence. Though the question remains: is it equally widely understood? I would definitely prefer not to see two versions given for each code. If it were thought that the format +44 (0)1780 (though I still prefer it) is not generally understood, then I would favour giving just the national version: 01780 (that is, by the way, what de.wikipedia does for places in Germany). -- Picapica 5 July 2005 10:37 (UTC)

While +44 (0)1780 is widely understood, it is however strongly deprecated in official telecoms circles because trying to dial +4401780" will result in a failed call. Officially you are supposed to show both international format (+44 1780) and national format (01780) numbers. -- Arwel 6 July 2005 18:41 (UTC)

Template:oscoor

Template:oscoor has just been created. This enables GB (and Irish soon, I hope) Wikipedians to take advantage of the "Map sources" pages without having to mess with those nasty rightitude and wrongitude thingies. -- RHaworth 05:13, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

Template for Scotland

I copied the template for England (discussed above), and made changes to make it relevant to Scotland. Changes include that all councils in Scotland are unitary authorities now, so no need for Regions and Districts. Plus, after this election the constituencies are different for Westminister and Holyrood. (This will need a page listing the Holyrood constituencies separately). This is it here: Template:Infobox Scotland place. See Plockton for an example of it in use. Maccoinnich 15:15, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Nicely done :-) 80N 17:46, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Place names in the UK

I recently noted a page, Cromford railway station, which stated that it was "a railway station serving the village of Cromford in Derbyshire". I added slightly, so that it read "in Derbyshire, England". Is this an incorrect format for place names in the UK? Should it read "in Derbyshire, United Kingdom"? Essentially, I'm looking for a way to make sure that people know where something is; I don't like to expect people to recognize English counties, U.S. states, Canadian provinces, etc. Thanks, Meelar (talk) 01:02, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

I prefer the England link - I think most people in Derbyshire would prefer that to the UK. Brookie 07:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think a link to the county is sufficient (having checked for possible ambiguity). If a reader has never heard of Lincolnshire, they always click on the link to find out what country it is in. -- RHaworth 11:50, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

Brit accents for Spoken

Anyone with a British accent (of any variety) fancy contributing to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia? All the recordings I've heard so far sport American-esque accents, but it'd be nice to get a mix. — Matt Crypto 01:05, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just like to add that this is important for articles that have lots of English terms and phrases. Whilst anyone is allowed to do any article, some more local entries may benefit from a slight accent! Greg Robson 19:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've already contributed a few, Welsh language, Ruthin,
Fireworks Music
... -- Arwel 6 July 2005 18:41 (UTC)

FARC alert

Three (3!) UK-related Featured articles are listed on Featured article removal candidates

They are far from perfect (compare the brilliant Blackadder or Doctor Who): given the tenor of WP:FARC recently, they all face a significant risk of being defeatured, so a little effort to clean them up and make them shine is called for. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:39, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject General Election

The United Kingdom general elections are approaching. Considering the popularity and content growth which has resulted from high-interest topics such as the Pope, should we consider having a project to make Wikipedia the definitive source for information relating to the UK general election, in general, and this year's in particular? The national and international interest created by a closely contested and highly charged election tends to get people talking about it, and people like to know what they're talking about (or at least seem to ;-). If the media picked up on the quality of our articles relating to the election, we could harness this interest to bring more readers, editors and content. I personally consider this a great way to combine making Wikipedia better with making the election more interesting, and thus meaningful for people, not to mention the importance of neutral information regarding politics. Here are some things we could do:

  • Create a WikiPortal for this year's election, to provide a nice interface to finding out more
  • Create custom articles for comparison of candidates, platforms, manifestos, etc. using templates.
  • Increase coverage of the developments as the election takes place.
  • Organise and promote election-night coverage (emphasise speed, etc)

Any comments?

  • I'd support increased coverage if you were willing to get it started. I'm not sure about all of the above points--how would comparison of candidates work in an encyclopedia, and could it possibly be kept NPOV? But, yeah, we should also integrate the Wikinews coverage with it, wherever possible. Manifestos can go on Wikisource. Joe D (t) 23:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm always impressed by the speed with which Wikipedia is updated with current events. The election would be another opportunity to showcase this and highlight one of Wikipedia's strongest USPs. However, currently we do seem to be very light on detail for many areas - List of Parliamentary constituencies in the United Kingdom for example shows very few constituency specific pages exist yet. 80N 08:26, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, Category:UK_Parliamentary_constituencies currently lists 137 articles (although not all are not actual constituencies, and some are very short - see City of York (constituency)). The historic 2001 BBC election coverage is excellent: taking one of the existing articles as a template (Reading East is quite good, I think), it should be fairly easy to create a couple of lines on the nature of the constituency and the 2001 and 1997 election results, with a blank table for the 2005 results. Given the number of constituencies, some kind of bot could do it, I suppose - surely the results can't attract copyright (although the descriptions would). -- ALoan (Talk) 21:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikinews has news coverage of the election campaign and already has a prepared story ready to run with the general election results (Results of 2005 United Kingdom General Election), complete with a table of the results in each of the constituencies, for updating by editors as the results come in. You can help Wikinews right now by deciding whether to leave the results table in alphabetical/numerical order as it stands, or to break it up into regions for ease of update when the results come in. Uncle G 02:38, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
    • I'm up for helping with this, the BBC does some categorisation by region (link). I would need templates for results with standard colours for each party and some standard if we want a page for for each constituency. Ideally some sort of template for the header, with rows in the table where we specify the name, colour (if req), party, votes, %age of votes and swing. Finally a template for the bottom with the winner, their majority and turnout. Then we can build something to match this (BBC News) and hopefully better it! Greg Robson 21:35, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia already has some pages to match the BBC page that you mention. See Birmingham Hodge Hill, for example. And the Wikinews results article already has the constituencies broken down into regions. (Or will have soon. The task of splitting the list into regions is partway completed at the moment.)
      • There appear to be four parts to this task:
        1. Creating the per-constituency articles in Wikipedia
        2. Interwiki linking the row in the table at Wikinews:Wikinews:Story preparation/Results of 2005 United Kingdom General Election on Wikinews to the per-constituency articles on Wikipedia
        3. Filling in the gain/lose/hold tables at Wikinews:Wikinews:Story preparation/Results of 2005 United Kingdom General Election on Wikinews as the results are declared
        4. Filling in the detailed analysis and results in the Wikipedia per-constituency articles
      • With those four, we can, by combining Wikinews and Wikipedia, equal the BBC's coverage.
      • The first two tasks can be done right now. (List of Parliamentary constituencies in the United Kingdom is out of date and incorrect. The list on Wikinews is up-to-date, however. So by interwiki linking each each constituency on the Wikinews list to a Wikipedia article as it is created, effectively using Wikinews as a "to-do" list, you can kill two birds with one stone.) The third task is the highest priority on the day of the election itself when the results are coming in. And the fourth task can be completed at leisure afterwards. Uncle G 03:13, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
        • I agree entirely, if we can use the prettytable template (see Template talk:Prettytable for usage) and then colour boxes to represent each party (like the BBC) then we can really show what Wikipedia is capable of! And getting a link on the front page for In the news would be a bonus. I can't help out until Friday however as I have essays and deadlines to meet! Greg Robson 08:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • I've verified List of Parliamentary constituencies in the United Kingdom against the ONS list. It is now correct and up-to-date, but still includes the 13 Scottish constituencies as they are current until at least May 5th, not sure exactly when they should be removed. 80N 11:14, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
          • It's not that 13 have to removed - 72 have to be removed, and 59 new ones put in. It should probably be done asap, as after all, those are the seats that are being fought on at the moment and the old ones no longer have any MPs. Maccoinnich 20:45, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • I have mocked up a template in my sandpit: User:GregRobson/sandpit. Colours are taken from the BBC stylesheet (scroll down to the lines beginning #constituencyresults). It's basic and informative. All feedback appreciated Greg Robson 17:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I've bitten the bullet and created a set of pukka templates, see Template:Election box. For an example of it in use see Bethnal Green and Bow. If anyone has ideas for making it even better then please contribute over on the template talk page. 80N 15:26, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • A quick question - a sampling of the five constituencies in Edinburgh shows that each has a list of candidates, and without exception only one of those candidates has a link on each page. Is it worth creating stubs for some of the others? The problem is that "is a candidate for election" is only borderline notable - looking at Edinburgh South, where I am just now, I'd guess only the Lib-Dem candidate has much to write about other than "is running in Edinburgh South", and even that is pretty limited. I guess most would amount to a three-line bio. Thoughts on whether or not it's worth it? Shimgray 21:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • It was decided on VfD that the mere act of running in a Canadian parliamentary election makes someone notable enough to have a Wikipedia article - so I'm sure you could write articles for each and every candidate if you so wished. As to whether anyone would ever want to read lots of articles about every candidate in the general election is, however, a separate question, jguk 21:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I created a page for a candidate - but only because its my father, Mike Tarrant. To be honest I think that we should only wikify links to sitting candidates, unless the person is well known enough to deserve a page for other reasons (e.g. Martin Bell). That is to say - if people want to create pages for candidates all well and good, but a list of red linked candidates on all pages does Wikipedia no good. --Neo 22:47, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
        • I've not done an exhaustive check, but there seems to be a page for every MP, and so the winner of each previous election will probably have a valid link and they'll probably also be a candidate for the current election. However, I doubt there is anything notable about someone who stands and gets only a few hundred votes, unless of course it's Screaming Lord Sutch. 80N 00:47, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, on the contrary, the general consensus on VFD as far as I've seen is deletion of people whose sole claim to fame is that they stood for an election and lost. Doing something else significant, or losing in particularly grand style like Screaming Lord Sutch, counts in favour of a person, of course. But standing for an election without winning it is not, by itself, generally considered significant. There are an awful lot of election losers Out There. ☺ I echo NeilTarrant's sentiment that lists of redlinked names of people are Bad Things. They are invitations for the creations of biography articles that don't meet the Wikipedia:criteria for inclusion of biographies and as such general menaces. Uncle G 02:38, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
      • I suggest that you test (with preview) to see if the candidates already have articles about them - some do because they've gone on to be MEPs or simply have articles for other reasons. -- Joolz 15:51, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

You !$*& Scotsman

Whilst cleaning up after an anon, I came across the article Offensive terms per nationality. Its not the best article, but I was surprised to see there were no insults for the Scots, the Welsh or even the English (as opposed to British). Even more surprisingly I can't actually think of any myself. However it looks like an omission that people here would be able to correct. -- Solipsist 09:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've added a few for scotsmen Brookie 16:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Um... yes... I've made the descriptions for Brookie's suggestions a little more NPOV, and added Jock. - MykReeve (T) (C) 17:01, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! I thought that they were meant to be offensive! Oh dear - don't look at the Welsh! Brookie 19:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


UK versus U.K.

Where is it written that one should use UK rather than U.K. for British English articles? I can't find a mention of it in the MoS. Jooler 21:49, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not aware that there is any ruling on this. All I will say is that UK is very commonly used (like UTC) and so it may be that the version without full stops has become commonplace. Both are correct, but UK is more commonly used: Google Fight: U.K. vs UK. Greg Robson 16:42, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I, hailing from the UK, have never seen it spelt U.K. It is convention that dictates UK is correct. --Oldak Quill 21:47, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I, also hailing from the UK, have seen it spelt U.K., but not for a very long time. -- Arwel 23:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I shall quote from the Bloomsbury Grammar Guide:
Full stops following abbreviations and contractions were also in general use until very recently. The tendency now is to omit full stops here.
The guide actually list U.K./UK as an example of this. Both would appear to be correct, but UK is now the more commonly used. I hope this helps. Rje 12:13, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
It's a matter of typographical fashion. There is a fashion in the USA, supported by various rules of style, to use full stops or period in abbreviations, and in the UK the fashion is to present them unadorned and let the reader work it out for himself. Thus you'll often see "Mr." in US newspaper headlines and "Mr" in UK newspapers referring to the same person. Today's LA Times contains a headline referring to the "U.S." Today's Guardian contains a headline referring to the "UK". There are exceptions to these trends on both sides of the Atlantic. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
UK with no stops seems more natural to me as a Brit! Brookie 18:21, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The MoS contains a bit of American nationalism - because the abbreviation "US" refers to their country some Americans (though by no means all) think they should dictate to all users of Wikipedia that we must use American English punctuation when using the abbreviation and must always write "U.S.". However, as the above WPians have noted, current writing outside North America has a tendency towards less punctuation. So most (but not all) British writers use the forms "US", "UK", "GB", etc. The reason the MoS does not require that all articles should favour "UK" over "U.K." is because such requirements are silly: why should an article written in standard American English with standard American English punctuation suddenly be required to refer to the "UK" rather than the "U.K."? It's just a shame that there is a reactionary American nationalist movement that blocks the deletion from the MoS of the equally ridiculous suggestion that all references should be to the "U.S." rather than the "US". Kind regards, jguk 19:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

British cuisine - needs a rewrite

This article is pretty rubbish actually. I've rewritten the first para, but it needs a complete overhaul. Jooler 15:42, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have volunteered to do History of British cuisine, at some point soon, maybe the rest of it. I probably should do Scottish beer first now have done English beer and (rather brief at the moment) Welsh beer. Justinc 16:52, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

UK general election - request for help

With just a week to go now until the general election, we could really do with lots of help to get the 650+ constituency pages ready.

The groundwork has been done and there are templates and election result data ready to use. We just need lots of help prepping each page. Full details of how you can help are here: WikiProject UK Parliamentary Constituencies.

At the very least, have a look at the page for your own constituency and check it for accuracy.

Any and all help will be very much appreciated. 80N 05:08, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Ok I've created three constituencies, but I'm a bit worried as there seems to be a bit of confusion over the use of templates in the main wikipedia; Some duplication of constituencies created by User:Uncle G; similar duplication of pages containing party colours; (also the meta data templates use the American spelling for colour/color). Jooler 12:03, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Update

  • As at 19:51, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC), 72 constituencies (11%) are election ready. Thanks to everyone who has been helping today, however, at this rate of progress it will take 10 days. That means we'll be done on May 7th, which is three days too late! We really, really need everyone to do what they can to help! 80N 20:06, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • As at 08:30, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC), we are a quarter of the way done. Great work by everyone who is helping. If we can get more help like we've had in the last couple of days, we might just be done in time! BTW no special knowledge is required to help, there are prepared templates and information sources for everything that needs doing. Its just article editing. 80N 08:30, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

How you can help on election day

Also see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliamentary Constituencies/Progress#Election_night. Uncle G 13:37, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

Talk:Ministry of Defence (United Kingdom)

  • A request that readers to this noticeboard look at the requested move on this talk page. Jooler 22:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Yoghurt renamed to yogurt

Thanks for the heads-up. I've moved it back. (Some sneaky person had tried to stop it being moved back by editing the redirect, so I just deleted it.) Proteus (Talk) 12:12, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately they haven't given up. The latest ploy is a listing on Wikipedia:Requested moves... -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:13, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Hi

Just wanted to pop in and say "hi" and that I've come back. However I'm not going to be participating to the same extent as I was before I went away for wikibreak and I see this is still ticking over (though someone should archive some of this talk page!) so I'm still going to be taking it easy. But hi to anyone who missed me. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 00:28, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Collaboration of the fortnight

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket is launching a collaboration of the fortnight. All cricket-loving Wikipedians are invited to come along and help choose our first collaboration and, of course, to help in the collaboration itself.

Also, if you are interested in helping improve and expand WP's cricket coverage, please feel free to sign up to the Cricket WikiProject. Kind regards, jguk 18:41, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Milton Keynes Dons

Would any UK Wikipedian interested in football care to contact me about helping with a rewrite of Milton Keynes Dons F.C. (aka what used to be Wimbledon F.C.) - the article's in quite a sorry state after a series of POV edits and could do with a complete going over. Ta. Qwghlm 23:47, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Birmingham article

There seems to be an endless edit war going on at the Birmingham article between User:Nick Boulevard (who often edits anonymously) and User:Pigsonthewing (and some anon who claims not to be the latter) who all seem to be stubbonly warring with each other.

We had this war before some months ago, but then Pigsonthewing left, but now he's back again and its all started again.

Frankly I'm very tired of this, so I though I would bring it to everone's attention, and was wondering if some brave person would like to try and mediate and sort it all out, several people have tried (including me) with little success, and the article has had to be protected at several occasions in the past.

G-Man 23:29, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Matters are worsening with the arrival of Babyoil -- on whom, please see the section below on Glasgow. -- Hoary 07:44, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

I put in a brief reference yesterday to Louis MacNeice having taught at Birmingham uni, which User:Nick Boulevard removed (because if he sees anything added to an article he doesn't like, he just reverts the lot whether anyone else has added to it or not), it was restored in another revert this morning (by the anon G-Man mentions above). On the other hand, Nick seems to have decided I'm Andy Mabbett, as is everyone else he doesn't like. Maybe he thinks Louis MacNeice is Andy Mabbett. There was a similar spat on Brummie and Brummagem, Nick's very resistant to anyone changing "his" articles, especially if he thinks what they are adding gives a negative impression of Birmingham. The solution there was for other people who he hadn't developed a grudge against to get involved, and hold him to standards of proof and NPOV. The Birmingham article is in a state at the moment, but I'm not going anywhere near it again until Nick is behaving sensibly - if he deletes the MacNeice edit, so be it. I'm going to add the article to the list of ones needing improvement, in the hope that someone else will have a go. They'll have to be patient. --Andrew Norman 09:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

For "edit war", read "people are trying to correct some of the rubbish posted by Nick Boulevard. Of course, if I'm wrong, others (inlcuding G-man) will be able to defend Nick's additions and reversions, point by point. Don't hold your breath... Andy Mabbett 23:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Note also User talk:Nick Boulevard#Vandalism, where Nick anounces that he is going to "riase his game". Andy Mabbett 23:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I second (third, or whatever) the feeling of general exhaustion. He's now accusing me also of being Andy Mabbett. The problem is focused on Birmingham, but it extends across every Birmingham-related article he frequents. Science and invention in Birmingham is typical; I dread what he'll make of that, after I've weeded out in his absence all the unverified claims and the plain wrong ones (usually "X was first invented in Birmingham" factoids where X turns out to have been invented in Oslo 30 years previously).
Yes, it has turned into a bit of a deathmatch between Nick and Pigsonthewing. But I almost always agree with the latter's edits. I think disagreement between the Birmingham-related editors would be soluble if it weren't for Nick apparently writing whatever comes into his head, never citing sources, always hyping Birmingham (what everyone else sees as NPOV, he sees as anti-Birmingham) and reverting and letting off a page of rant when - as it's bound to be with such poor standards of proof - it's heavily edited or deleted.
As Andrew Norman mentions, being exhaustive about standards of proof is vaguely helpful, but I resent having to write an essay on Talk page to justify every small edit.
I agree also that his failure to revert specifically, so other people's edits on non-related points are lost, is also a serious annoyance. I've been asking him till I'm blue in the face to read and follow Wikipedia guidelines, but it just isn't soaking in. RayGirvan 03:37, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I preusme you've mentioned your comments on his talk page? If so, have you tried an RfC? Thryduulf 08:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. He has also been advised to go read the NPOV guidelines by Angela (the member of the board of trustees who welcomed him, and to whom he's complained about persecution and - ahem - underplayed the extent of his copyvios - I ended up copying and posting a few short sentences - see here) That's probably what he means by the trick ... with a wiki member. RayGirvan 09:50, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He acknowledged that copy vio was wrong, on his talk page, in May 2004:
when i first started to work on Wikipedia as do many people i expect re: copy 'n' paste then thinking it was ok by editing the work myself, i soon realised it was wrong and now i only submit my own work which is quite extensive on the page
Andy Mabbett 10:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately that swings to a different extreme. I'd still like to believe it's a misunderstanding. Nick currently doesn't seem to appreciate that there's a middle way - paraphrasing, and selective quotes - between outright copyvio and just writing unsourced stream-of-consciousness. RayGirvan 11:20, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I do actually have a little trick up my sleeve with a wiki member - this seems to be bluster at the moment, but if the abuse starts again I would certainly support an RfC. There is plenty of evidence of abusive reverts, personal abuse, dozens of copyright violations, explicit rejection of NPOV, and so on. I'm hoping "raise my game" means "start acting sensibly, citing sources and accepting that Wikipedia is not my personal website about why Brum is utterly fantastic", but I'm not hopeful. --Brumburger 09:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I would certainly support an RfC. I concur. For the moment, I'm going to stop arguing with him (the reams he writes at the drop of a hat suggests that, like many nuisances, he likes the process of argument) and be stringent about providing, and demanding, sources. In any case, I'm shifting back to normal job hours, so have less time to argue the toss. RayGirvan 09:50, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In the light of Nick Boulevard's continued provocation, ranging from juvenile name- calling to false and malicious allegations, I'd like to know what steps can be taken (RFC or otherwise?) to discourage if not stop, such abuse, which is clearly contrary to policy. Should I do something, or leave it to a neutral third party? Andy Mabbett 11:44, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Requests for comment, section General user conduct. I'd support one. Yep: I agree about the third party. That would defend against the obvious cheap shot of his claiming it to be just an escalation of a personal dispute. RayGirvan 12:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'll write an RfC, the next time he reverts the Birmingham page or any of the related ones (which, judging by his most recent comments, will be soon). May have to wait until next week, though. I see he still thinks I'm you, but we only need two people to support an RfC. --Brumburger 11:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You might be interested in User_talk:82.96.100.100. The recent blissful two-day absence seems to have been down to a block for vandalism. RayGirvan 15:05, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think it would be courteous to offer G-Man 'first refusal', to be your "seconder", as he raised the issue here. Andy Mabbett 15:20, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The more people who support an RfC the better - I think we can probably get at least four of us (or two in Nick's world, as he hasn't yet reached the stage of thinking you and G-Man are the same person!). I'll sort something out early next week when I have time. --Brumburger 10:54, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Birmingham page has been protected for the time being. G-Man 21:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reversion frenzy started again as 195.92.67.65. RayGirvan 18:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As did the defamatory allegations. Andy Mabbett 22:05, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And then at 23:23, as Nick Boulevard. Andy Mabbett 22:49, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Also at 22:59 as 195.92.67.69 Andy Mabbett 22:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RfC initiated The RfC re Nick Boulevard is now live at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Nick_Boulevard. Since NB is currently soliciting help [1] I don't feel much guilt about doing likewise. What it specifically needs is signatories to the effect that at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. RayGirvan 20:50, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Glasgow

WP has a newish, very keen and I suspect rather young Glaswegian contributor, Babyoil. He's particularly keen to improve the article on Glasgow. But almost every edit he makes strikes me as unfortunate. (The history will reveal all. Note the use of an IP number before the new username.) Yes, on occasion he does introduce new material that is, or might be, worthwhile; but this tends to be garbled and even when it looks OK I have no faith in its veracity. This is not willful vandalism: it's more like what I would have done at the age of 12 to an article about my own area. I really have no idea of what to do; but perhaps somebody who, unlike me, can claim to know Glasgow at first hand can exert an avuncular influence here.

Babyoil has been warned on his talk page and has sometimes replied politely enough -- but doesn't seem to have cottoned on. (He has since deleted some of these warnings.)

Babyoil's interests extend to Edinburgh, Birmingham, and any other British city that might in some way rival Glasgow: I, in Tokyo, am not familiar with any of them. (And I fear that, in his wobbly way, he will soon attempt to explain within the Milan article that that city is the Glasgow of the south, etc, etc.) -- Hoary 07:44, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

The Ashes

The current Cricket collaboration of the fortnight is The Ashes, please come help out.

Proposal for collaborating on counties etc

I'm dissapointed with the quality of some of the articles on counties and am proposing collaborating on getting them up to scratch. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK subdivisions if you're interested. Joe D (t) 17:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, this is now at a new wikiproject, Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography. Joe D (t) 12:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Diss

Could someone knowledgable check on the city of Diss article. It is described as being a "seperatist stronghold". Thanks. func(talk) 22:33, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted the paragraph which didn't use encyclopedic language (refering to the train service) and was POV. As for the "seperatist stronghold" I don't know what it refers to, either seperation of Norfolk from the UK which seems very unlikely that anyone in Diss advocates, let alone it being a stronghold, more likely it's talking about the UK and EU - possibly UKIP does well in Diss, however I still don't think the term is useful so it's gone. -- Joolz 22:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yep: someone's having a joke. I loved the earlier claim that its name derives from Dis in Dante's The Divine Comedy. There's plenty of real background at Diss Online]. RayGirvan 23:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oops, I completely skimmed over that part! -- Joolz 00:49, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I suspect that this same person, (under more than one IP address), is the author of two hoax articles, currently on VfD, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jonathan Sharpe and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Charles Mason (Revolutionary). func(talk) 23:29, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)