Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Coventry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Coventry, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Coventry. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.
NA This page does not require a assessment on the quality scale.
WikiProject
Coventry
General information
Main project page talk
- Main articles
- New articles
- Improvement drive
- Participants
Assessment

Project templates
Project templates

Related WikiProjects
WikiProject West Midlands talk
WikiProject Cities talk

Contents

[edit] Project start - 26 February 2008

There are currently well over 800 pages related to Coventry including many football-related pages. This project aims to improve and organise all of the Coventry pages with the cooperation of interested editors. Snowman (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coventry discussion from Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals

Description 
A project to coordinate pages on the city of Coventry, England
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. User:Snowmanradio
  2. G-Man ?
  3. Red Sunset: I'll poke my nose in, interfere, and generally annoy (LOL) if I can improve anything.
  4. User:Keith D
  5. Erebus555
  6. User:Djsmiley2k —Preceding comment was added at 11:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. goodbiz Happy to join in
  8. User:Breadsticks.rock
  9. User:Manfromcov
Comments

There is enough interest to start the project.
Project started 26 February 2008. Basic project page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Coventry. Snowman (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Dis-appointed that both Mount Nod and Banner Brook Park have been removed, Eastern Green is not Mount Nod, and to some, a housing estate is of interest. It is significantly intereting to some people. Also Banner brook Park is not part of Tile Hill, because it has significant interest because of its former factory site. It is a pity to shorten the facts by short casting.

[edit] Templates

A query on the use of West Midlands templates. If we are using these templates then how are we to detect which articles are Coventry based and which relate to other areas of the West Midlands, as the templates put articles in to a bucket with all of the rest of the West Midlands. May be this should be handled as a workgroup of that project with a flag added to the template or may be serarate templates. Any thoughts? Keith D (talk) 10:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I am glad you raised that and I have written a user box, a project banner, and started various supporting pages. Will the talk pages have both a West Midlands project and a Coventry project banner? Snowman (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
If you decide to go with separate template then I can run the script to set up the category structure for the bot. Need to get the bot set-up before tagging too many articles if we are using the assessments. Give me a shout if you want me to do this. Keith D (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
What are the issues for and against this? Snowman (talk) 10:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Unsure what the question is refering to - separate templates or performing assessments. But do not know if I can answer the former. On the assesments it is probably there to focus minds on the more important articles and to get them moving towards FA. Though on a wider scale they are used to select articles for the CD and other promotional things. The down side of the assessments is maintaining them as article changes are made. Keith D (talk) 11:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
ok, I did not know there was a bot, but I thought that there should be one. If you think it is a good idea, then run the bot. I have made some directories already, in line with WP:Cities and WP:London. Hopefully, there will be several users to rate the pages. Does the bot also make the assessment page or any other pages too? Snowman (talk) 11:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I have run the initial run of the assessment bot and it has generated the appropriate files - the stats are at statistics which has picked up 2 tagged articles. The other files are the article table and the activity log. It should update automatically when the bot reaches the project, about every 5 days. Keith D (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
That helps, I have incorporated the statistics in the assessment page; (link in the navigation box), Snowman (talk) 14:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assessments

I'm not entirely sure that I agree that all Coventry districts should be assessed as at least mid importance. Some districts or suburbs are effectively just housing schemes or residential areas of no particular note, importance, or historical significance or connection. To my mind these are of low importance, and though of course they need to be mentioned, some barely deserve a page to themselves. --Red Sunset 21:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Some smaller housing estates would probably be minor importance, but the suburb that they are part of would surely be at least mid importance. I updated Hillfields, Tile Hill, Ball Hill, Bell Green and Wyken and other from low importance to mid importance which seems obvious to me. Tile Hill, Bell Green and Ball Hill might even be high importance as they all have shopping centers and other features. I changed others too, and perhaps some might need changing back to low. Any suggestions for the ones that need a review? Coventry suburbs would be mostly low importance to the WikiProject West Mildlands, but they are of higher importance to us in the WikiProject Coventry - that is partly why we have this project. Snowman (talk) 11:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, Coventry suburbs would be mostly low importance to the WikiProject West Mildlands, and some should be in high importance WP:Cov categories; but why have a low importance category if nothing qualifies? For that reason I feel that some districts should be of low importance (relatively speaking with all due respect to the district) re my earlier comments, and those that have for instance been instrumental in the growth and development of Coventry such as areas connected with watch-making, textile and ribbon weaving, motor manufacture etc., or for any other reason have or still contribute significantly to the City should be of high importance and deserve a review. Ok, shopping centres and the like are important to the local community, but IMHO in the scale of things they are not that important and a "Mid" rating is suitable. Of course, all this is purely my opinion, and possibly not that of anyone else, so for consistency, should we have some sort of importance guideline with suggested parameters and conditions to refer to when assessing? --Red Sunset 17:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully there will be agreement of objective opinions, and formal guidelines are not be needed at this juncture. The general wiki guidelines are always followed, of course. Snowman (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Red links

I ran a wiki tool to find red links in the pages in the Coventry category. It is possible that relevant pages have already been made with a different name. Pages with more than on red link are listed: Snowman (talk) 11:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Wanted Title
2 Augustus Legge
2 Brandon Stadium
2 Brownlow North
2 Caludon
3 Clark L. Brundin
2 Clarrie Bourton
2 Clinton McKenzie
11 Diocese of Coventry and Lichfield
3 Ella (bishop)
2 Foleshill railway station
2 Godfrey Blyth
3 Gosford Green
2 Henry Ryder
3 Higbert II
3 Humbert (bishop)
3 James Cary
2 John Lonsdale
2 Kelly-Anne Smith
2 Ken Sharp
3 Kinebert
2 Richard Crassus
2 Robert de Monte Pessulano
3 Robert de Stretton
2 See of Leicester
3 Stoke, Coventry
2 William Heynes
2 William de Manchester

[edit] Scope and goals

Before we start getting into the assessments and improving articles etc., we need to develop a scope and and set of goals for the WikiProject and publish them on the main project page. The main page looks unfinished and needs to properly explain what the project is about and how it works. I'm just a bit worried that we are trying to run before we can walk. - Erebus555 (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

In the first line "Project to improve and organise the articles about Coventry." Snowman (talk) 22:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Something more specific, though. For example "Get Coventry to Featured Article status." Although, that is a good start, at least. - Erebus555 (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
That is one goal but it is too specific for the introduction of the project page, I think. When people want to start to work on that goal they will list it in the improvement drive section. For me, the aims as they are stated are fine. I feel that the current pages that are most likely to reach GA (lets leave FA out of it at the moment) are Philip Larkin and Frank Whittle. The Philip Larkin page has had a lot of work recently. Snowman (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)