User talk:Acabashi/Archive 2

help regarding newly created pages pls
Hiya again Acabashi - hope you arent too busy to see this ;) Ive been busy creating new pages for some of the smaller places in Lincolnshire such as North Forty Foot Bank and Pelhams Land and when I put the category pl: in a bot comes along and takes it off again. Why? and how can it be resolved so that the work done actually shows up in the recent edits bit of the Wikiproject Lincolnshire page? Thanks Panderoona (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi there - bots can do funny things - they are a mystery to me. Cats are an area that I'm not very much up on I'm afraid - I just copy them from allied pages. Why don't you check with User:Keith D who is big in the Lincs Project - I'm sure he can shed light on bot behaviour. Apologies for not being knowledgeable on this. Keep up the great work. Best wishes. Acabashi (talk) 23:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks - Ill ask him :) Panderoona (talk) 10:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

dontchya just love dinosaurs
Our friend Dinosaur has added some rambling uncited stuff to Alvingham and Castle Bytham. I have no doubt at all that if we write on his talk page he wont read it. So, any suggestions? Panderoona (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * They are wonderful beasts aren't they? The Alvingham stuff is another uncited rambler's travelogue, and the cites for the stuff on Harold Wilson (Castle Bytham) don't mention Castle Bytham as far as I can see from a quick butchers' - the dedication shown on the Woodhall Spa page has deterred reversion to the old "geog" nonsense I think. I would leave Alvingham and Castle Bytham alone for a week or so just in case there is more fluff to be added, or to give an opportunity for decent citations, after which a copyedit and flushout can be made in cold blood. I will soon add cite requests and section templates first with comments on the article's talk page. I suspect the comments are read as they are flagged, but are not responded to. But it is good to add comments anyway (and yours is very good - tough but conciliatory) as it adds to a history if admins decide to get involved later - I think these edits give the appearance of good faith but there are so many gratuitous edits now, with laziness in providing apt references, but they are just on this side of being disruptive. Sometimes it's useful to blue-link to various or particular pages in the WP:MOS in your user page comments - they can rarely be argued with. In your "My preferences"/"Watchlist" tick the box "Add pages I edit to my watchlist" to auto add edited pages to your watchlist - you have probably done this anyway. These two articles will be on your watch list but they can drop off the bottom before you see them. I find it useful to add articles I want to keep an eye on on my user page and/or in a special word document - that's why my page looks a mess :) Acabashi (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * hahahaha you do make me chuckle ;) Yeah I felt he might well have good faith intentions, but is just not listening to the moans and warnings he already has. Maybe he will listen this time - maybe not - but at least we can say we tried. Panderoona (talk) 07:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Panderoona barnstar
Thanks for doing that. She had a rough-ish start but it is paying off. We need people like her, with the passion for a subject area and the willingness to learn the ropes about citations etc. Getting the head to rule over the heart is a tough one sometimes, but she is doing it. - Sitush (talk) 00:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I had some good friends to teach me :D and thanks again cos its all pretty and shiny on my page (thanks Acabashi) Panderoona (talk) 07:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Bury St Edmunds
No aggrandisement - Bury is a cathedral city. Opbeith (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I took the notion of (market) town from the Bury official site. Although one of the traditional definitions of a city is that it has a cathedral, this definition nowadays is a bit archaic, based on a much earlier (in this case Middle Ages) greater importance as the centre of a see. I don't think even people of Bury consider it a city in the modern sense, unless they wish to aggrandise it :)


 * I stand by all I said in the deletion discussion. If the books are seen to be notable and the article survives, Farmer's personally promoted Wikipedia web site will appear, from his point of view, to have Wikipedia sanction for all the teaching and political minutiae. How many thousands of school teachers and ward councillors are there - and what has he done in those local jobs that is notable for the world stage? This BLP habit of throwing in a load of inconsequential nonsense under the smokescreen of one or two perhaps notable cited claims is one of the problems that has degraded Wikipedia, and Farmer is a blatant example. No wonder academics advise: don't trust anything you read on Wikipedia, just use it for the sources. Acabashi (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia isn't meant to be a boundary-marked game conservation area policed by knowledge wardens (or the convenient source of volunteer-subsidised teaching material that many academics would apparently like it to be). It's meant to be an open access medium that allows anyone - anyone - to contribute material and exercises pragmatic quality control by allowing defects in the material to be remedied by other contributors. Academics imposing their own criteria of importance are just as much of a threat to the basic notion of Wikipedia as contributors of unhelpful detail.  More so insofar as the effect of their activities is to stunt the dissemination (and enjoyment) of knowledge. Articulacy and a sense of conferred authority gives academics the confidence to impose their own sense of what is and isn't important.  Sadly the pressures of the market and having to compete for their own slice of action in the form of posts, budgets grants and students seems to have imposed a rigorous professional focus that has impaired their capacity for self-knowledge.  There are too many academics who lack the insight to see themselves as an interest group - perhaps not basely motivated but not disinterested either.  They are the custodians of knowledge but not the owners of it.  They often don't understand that their world is not the only world (not a dig at your reference to "the world stage", but on reflection a challenge to it) and that other people may have different ideas of where importance lies. In Wikipedia the balance of competing interests is supposed to be achieved constructively through editing - academics have to take on board the fundamental message "Wikipedia is a work in progress" (as of course is knowledge, but I won't go chasing off after that one).  I know it's a personal view but deletion should be used to prevent abuse, not to impose conformity as an instrument of ideology and intellectual dominion.  I hope some prof in the field of the sociology of knowledge is taking an interest in WP AfDs, I'm sure it's a potentially exciting area of research for graduate students!


 * All that said I certainly agree with you that much of the detail in the article is inappropriate and gets in the way of appreciating the significance of its subject but it's a case for repair rather than demolition.Opbeith (talk) 10:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Ask for editor assistance
I want to ask for your assistance on Dennis_Elwell_(astrologer), a page you tagged back in January, and Deborah_Houlding. -- I have been trying to improve these pages and clean up unsourced items, but one editor goes on insisting that we should add links and references to (his?) external website. All attempts to point him/her to the WP guidelines have only met with resistance. See the respective talk pages. What to do in this case? MakeSense64 (talk) 09:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I should also add that I would welcome your impartial assistance in this too. What's been said above is not true at all.Ive been trying to do everything right here so please don't get the wrong idea before actually checking the page and the full discussion there. Thanks Clooneymark (talk) 11:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for making this request. I will look at the articles and their talk pages over the next few days and add any comments into the talk pages, where perhaps a consensus can be reached. I have added a "find sources" tag to both talk pages to help us improve the articles with more refs that might exist. Acabashi (talk) 10:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi again. Following discussion the proposed edits and reference links have now been added to the page.  Could you revist please, and if you approve, consider removing the tags on the article? Thanks very much Clooneymark (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry for butting in - but I added my thoughts on the talk page for Dennis Elwell. Hope no one minds Panderoona (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Your views on the Elwell talk page are succinct and appropriate Panderoona, and no doubt work for Houlding too. I haven't had the time to fully look at all the arguments yet through other (work) pressures, but I will over the next couple of days - apologies to MakeSense64 and Clooneymark over this. Your input is valued as a person who is independent of editors with seeming conflicting views, and with all necessary dispassion on any views I might express as the person who tagged the article. The more editor views on this the better. Acabashi (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * thanks - its not really a subject Id like to get involved in personally as Im far too skeptical of such things - but I think I can offer help from a totally distanced viewpoint. It does seem harsh if you really care about something and thats where you have to sit back and realise that "conflict of interest" is beginning to show its face. Wikipedia should be totally neutral, no matter how passionate you are. Tis a hard trick but Ive learnt from my own experience (in a short space of time!) - and in fact it enriched the whole thing as being sent off on searches to verify certain things, I found out a whole lot more that I never expected to find - so in my humble opinion - it IS worth it.


 * All useful comments. I think it is very needed for some skeptics to take a look at some astrology related articles on WP. I have a found a lot of articles being in a very bad condition, having been stubs for years, lacking neutrality, no reliable sources, poor WP style, excessive external links, .. I have met fierce resistance on some pages ..
 * One of the problems seems to be that people who are passionate about astrology, cannot accept that sources and sites they consider reliable and of good reputation in their field, are not automatically reliable independant secondary sources for the use in a WP article. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you indicate where this has actually happened, and perhaps take up that point on the relevant discussion page? Or perhaps on the discussion page of the Wiki Astrology Project? if it is a viable problem it can be discussed and addressed appropriately.Clooneymark (talk) 13:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I know where you are coming from - the problem here is "belief" versus verifiability. When you start attacking someones beliefs they begin to get narky. Probably why there is such a problem with those particular pages. Eeeee I hesitate to get involved ;) Panderoona (talk) 07:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I also agree that the issue of 'belief' versus verifiability is a problematic one. That is why I think it is important not to speculate or assume, because that is part of the same cycle really. Follow the policy of 'good faith' and if there are genuine causes for concern - raise them at a place where the issue can be verified. Just my suggestion Clooneymark (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody stops you from giving your own suggestions a try. We are waiting. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * True. And maybe it is because we all hesitate to get involved in pages that are related to certain "belief" and its "believers" that many of these articles are in such a bad condition from WP pov. It can be somewhat easier in articles on subjects that are deceased, but you never know. Just came across this one: Cheiro, it was tagged in 2008 and still has only one reference for such a long article. Stunning. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is a matter of legwork. It is easy to tag an article. Much more time consuming to actually work on the content with the intention of verifying what can be verified and bringing the page up to standard. That needs time and it also needs proper notification of the problem. The Wiki Astrology Project has a noticeboard and I will try to create activity on it and raise awareness of the problematic pages there. In response however, I suggest that negative aspertions are not cast on those who repond to the problem and aim to improve the quality of the content. Alerts for attention will - ideally - stimulate attention to the problem Clooneymark (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll have to add astrology to my list of articles (BLPs/schools/musicians/bands) to avoid when I'm worried about high blood pressure :) I have added comments on Deborah Houlding. Acabashi (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I must admit I would normally avoid anything to do with beliefs, its a regular minefield. But the rules on Wiki are clear: verifiability and neutral point of view. I guess we all know there are articles out there in every section of interest that are wanting, all we can do is keep plugging away at improving them. Panderoona (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * True, but some article areas attract a great amount of nonsense from interested parties and IP addresses and can become a hell of a chore to keep on top of. A tip is not to fire from the hip; step back and come back to it a couple of days later with a clear head and a worked out plan, if you can be bothered. 2 of my current nasties are Djent and Paul S. Farmer - a right pair of mares - by the time you come up with a plan the goalposts have changed :) Acabashi (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Not sure it needs to be tiring to work out a plan. Just follow policy and remember that when it comes to subjects that involve belief, neutrality does not require the dismissal of the belief. It only requires that the nature of the belief is objectively defined, with a sense of detachment and a reliance upon verifyable sources. Clooneymark (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * not sure how many indents there were there lol. Uhmm looks horrid - is that guy Paul S Farmer writing about himself?? Good luck I think Id run screaming for the loony bin ;) Panderoona (talk) 16:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * We have some interesting new visit on the Elwell page. On the plus side, somebody from the astrodatabank site weighed in to confirm that it is NOT reliable for the biography part (which was quite obvious). Any thoughts on this page ? Jean_Elliott Almost nothing there, yet exists since 2006. Amazing. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have been keeping an eye on the Elwell page and talk, and have noted the comments on the Reliable sources noticeboard. I can understand that the Astrobank articles cannot ultimately be relied upon as they are freely edited apparently (like Wikipedia), but the sources would be useful - however from what I've seen they are deeply lacking if they exist at all - the one Elwell source note is of little use. The statement that the raw name, date and place data are meticulously researched still has to be taken on faith. I am hoping that User:Aloist will comment again on the further entry on RSN. I am always suspicious of new seemingly Wiki-experienced one-edit users who jump out of the woodwork at the most auspicious time.

Unfortunately I fear you made your suspicion all too apparent, and underlined it with too much negative assumption. Perhaps a reason why this particular member will not now, contribute again. I too hope he will. His contribution was useful and important Clooneymark (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I am surprised (or not actually) that Jean_Elliott has remained in that state since 2006 - I think BLPs had a lower threshold for notability back then, and this article has just slipped under the radar. I have added a find sources tag but there appears not to be much available. If nothing can be found to improve, then a speedy delete could be considered, or if there is something but not substantial, an Articles for Deletion. It is certainly worthy of a notable tag. Acabashi (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like Jean_Elliott got speedy deleted by some other editor. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I will add a notice about this on the Wiki Astrology Project noticeboard. I think that since that project exists, it ought to be utilised. Clooneymark (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I looked at the Elwell page. I think I might be losing the will to live... :S Panderoona (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Im actually beginning to wonder if I shouldnt try making a page for my father who was a technical illustrator for various magazines over his working life most notably Flight International, where I can cite many references to his work which can be found online. In 1999 the Science Museum held an exhibition of the work of the Flight "cutaway" artists and he was included in that. I am not being funny but I think me dads work is probably as notable as that of Dennis Elwell - and I kid you not. But the idea of making him a Wikipedia page has never occurred to me until I came into contact with this Astrology incident. Im only 50 per cent serious but I think I could find enough to make him and some of his co workers Frank Munger and Maximillian Millar notable. Strange but true. I dont think its something I am likely to persue to be honest - but it has made me wonder seeing what has been written about Elwell. I really am amazed at the desperation of certain editors to big up this particular person. You know, perhaps I will try to do it in some way just to see the result - I really dont know what to make of the Elwell page in present form, nor how to deal with it, and to be honest whilst I would really like to know what my response to whats come of it over the past few days should be - I think I prefer my little edits on Lincs. Panderoona (talk) 21:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * An article for your father is an interesting idea. Just because you are close to the subject and might be seen to be susceptible to NPOV and COI doesn't preclude you creating such an article, as you have found out, only that you have to be seen to be even extra careful - or not so careful if you look at what has been got away with in the Farmer article :) Is your dad reported in major newspapers and mentioned in books? Is there a source for the Science Museum exhibition? Are there quotes anywhere that mention your dad? Do you have an example of his work that can be added? Are there categories that he fits into? These, if notable, aspects should get you over the first hurdle, New Page Patrol. If you compile the stuff I can offer help. You could create a sandbox page for the article and ask any amount of advice from editors to create a tight well-written article that almost defies impoverished additions. This last point points to one of the problems with the Elwell article - if it starts as waffle, it invites more waffle. A well-written article, good grammar and syntax, will tend to stop second-rate additions. But I'm waffling.


 * You have put your toes in the deep dark pond of BLPs, and found it rank :) Don't be too despondent; I have to say this article is the worst BLP I have been involved with, and I've known a few shockers, and I was invited there to provide an independent overview without a caveat that I had to support anyone's particular position, for goodness sake ! There are usually vested interest editors protecting 'their' BLPs (I don't include User:MakeSense64 as one of these) even if they don't realise they are doing it, and the odd scurrilous IP address, but it's rare that you find those that aren't ultimately lazy and give up for a while, and certainly it's rare, thank goodness, that sockpuppets are deployed - that is completely beyond the pale - don't ever think of setting up other accounts without being open about the reasons for doing so or your card will be marked - not that you would. If you feel that the cut and thrust of BLPs is occasionally a worthwhile diversion from Lincolnshire, and there are so many BLPs by their nature that need improving, why not - I've said this before - consider joining the Guild of Copywriters Drive in July. It's not all BLPs but all types of articles, but the nice thing about it is that you hone your copyedit (compositional) skills with help of a group of other editors if needed, which is useful for all articles, even your own. I must say though I admire the way you have added to the Ewell talk page, at times forthright - at times conciliatory; a difficult tightrope to walk.


 * Best wishes, Acabashi (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I shall seriously consider an article about the Cutaway Kings - most notable amongst whom were Max Millar, Frank Munger and me dad. Frank was a very very special man and as such an article on him would probably be my favourite starting point. I know for a fact I could cite information on him reasonably easily. Bless him he died last year. Thank you so much for your views regarding skills in working on for instance the Elwell page. I am a bit rusty but have done this kind of thing before as a volunteer having been online for over ten yrs. I was not familiar with the name sockpuppet but very familiar with the concept of sockpuppetry - all too easy to do. I have no need of it and whatever name I went by I would be all too obviously me. Panderoona (talk) 01:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * BLPs indeed turn out to be a dark pond, and astrologers are probably not the cleanest of waters in that pond. I have been going through the list of astrologers, now up to letter F, and added some 50 pages to my watchlist. Just article upon article that is seriously lacking, tagged for years, and I even find myself removing phone numbers of astrologers in India. I don't want to mention all of them, because otherwise I would be piling you under with articles that are not always fun to work on. You never know what comes out of hibernation as soon as you touch some of these articles.
 * I passed by on the Farmer article and deletion discussion a couple of days ago, but I didn't jump in because I had not enough time to properly study it before giving a vote. But it brough up some questions for me, which now equally apply to the Elwell article in its current form.
 * BLP guidelines have some specific instructions for biography of relatively unknown persons WP:NPF. I think Farmer and Elwell are clearly in that category. The guideline for NPF states : "exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, focusing on high quality secondary sources."
 * If that is the case, then shouldn't we first determine what is the notability of given person, and then mention only the things that are directly relevant to it (and from high quality sources only). Doing that would make both these articles a lot shorter. Now they almost list every tidbit that can be found somewhere on the internet, stopping just short of mentioning the size of shoes they wear.
 * Which makes me wonder about the due weight principle. Is due weight considered only within the article? Or is it also about making balance between different articles, making them longer or shorter based on the relative notability of each topic or subject? MakeSense64 (talk) 06:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

One of the ways to deal with articles that are seriously flawed is to add a Copyedit template and a Wikify template. This may appear tag littering sometimes so I only do it where an article is so beyond acceptability, while I usually try some improving at the time and explaining tagging reasoning - the value of this is that there are regular Copyedit and Wikification drives (sorry to push this one again) that will pick up these articles which are automatically added to their lists. They may not be tackled as editors can tend to go for the easy ones first, but it's not a fruitless exercise. Drives have cleaned-up about 50% of all tagged articles from 2009/10, and there can be no suspicion that the changes are carried out other than by complete neutrality - very important for those who will often use the "you're not neutral" cloak to mask their own vested interests. Drive editors' work is monitored so there is no point in being a Drive editor with ulterior motive. The Drives can pick up on non-notables, even if not tagged as such, and quite a few have been deleted during the process, under a reasonable assumption that "you can't polish shit" (pardon the vernacular).

You mention Farmer. Farmer has squeezed through the AfD process - I don't know how as his article (and he admits it is him) is now, in my view, his own personal web page. Once a BLP of this ilk gets through AfD its seems a green light for those with agendas to push any nonsense and trivia. I'm leaving well alone with that one for the moment - drop the stick and walk away - as there are bound to be other editors who will soon pick up on the problem. You are right in saying that the first thing to do is to determine [verification for] notability. However paltry the article is, unless it violates obvious vandalism, blatant promotion, or attack (speedy delete), an assumption can be made that if a claim for notability is made (by dint of the article being there in the first place) then the article should be given the benefit of the doubt and time for reliable secondary refs to be found. If none are found then delete is appropriate. However if refs are found we could be into the territory we are in with Elwell. "People who are relatively unknown" - well here is Wikipedia using weasel words that we are supposed to weed-out. The guideline door is just sufficiently open to allow interpretation. What is "relative" is relative - at what point do the unknown become relatively unknown and then at what point do they become known? Those with an agenda will shift known-ness and quality of sources anywhere along a sliding scale, and those with promotion in mind will slide these towards the top. The vague "exercise restraint" - one editor's restraint is another editor's idea that "you've got it in for my topic". "Due weight" means that all sides of the article topic should be included but based only on the availability of verifiable reliable (secondary) sources - if there are more reliable independent (not self-published or self-referencing) sources to support one aspect of the topic then I assume that the balance would be towards that aspect, and this would be roughly reflected in the amount of words attributed to that aspect. Then the issue of what is a reliable source again raises its head. Acabashi (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I was about to ask, because I saw you mention the Wikification drive to Panderoona and took a look this morning. So, if I find really lacking articles, I can just put on a CopyEdit(for badly written) or Wikify(multiple issues) tag and leave it alone. Then it gets picked up somewhere down the road in a next drive. With the other tags, they can basically be there for years and nothing may get done. I'll be too busy in the second half of the month, but will see if I can join a drive in July or August. On the one hand it was not always easy in the recent days, on the other hand I have gotten more into it. WP seems to me a better hobby than just watch tv. Thanks for the support. MakeSense64 (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * be careful, its very addictive. You might end up a Wikiholic! Panderoona (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I got up this morning still musing on the Cutaway Kings. I went to the Flight International page and saw that whilst the Cutaways were mentioned there was no mention of the artists. So I added the names of Max Millar, Frank Munger, John Marsden and Arthur Bowbeer. I have not added my dads name as he worked for Iliffes (later Reed) on various magazines and only worked exclusively for Flight for the last ten years of his working life. For this reason, and also to avoid the BLP thing since dad is alive, I am considering writing a piece on Frank Munger who died last year. His obit is online and comes from The Guardian. Most of their technical illustrations are copyright to Flight I think? However, Flight has put them online so an external link would suffice in that regard. Not too sure about the exhibition at the Science Museum - that was in late 1998. A booklet was written at the same time by the Science Museum, called "Beneath The Skin: a history of Aviation cutaway drawings from Flight International" which I can see on Google Books - but it doesnt even have a snippet view. All the artists were asked to provide photo and bio - including my dad, and I wrote the piece on him and sent it to Tim Hall who was the then editor. hmmm Im seriously thinking about this now.


 * Going back to Elwell and BLPs - I didnt find it "rank" I just found it hard to try and reign in someone so overly enthusiastic that they simply cant or wont listen to advice given in regard to writing good articles for Wikipedia. When I changed the article to a more neutral point of view, I had looked back in the history of the page and saw that Elwell was called a "local" journalist, so included that in the bit I wrote - which would certainly explain why we cant find much on him, and yet that single word has gone again. Including the word doesnt detract from his article, but its omission is Peacocky. In my opinion. Anyway - waffle waffle!! Panderoona (talk) 09:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, go for your Cutaway Kings. A previous version did mention that Elwell was a local newspaperman, in Stourbridge I think - if he was national and important there would certainly be sources. You can often find a removal of qualifying words in BLPs, and musicians, and schools, certainly if the qualifier appears to diminish a greater importance that some want to attribute - this is a fairly classic non-NPOV gambit, even if there is reliable evidence for the qualifier. Acabashi (talk) 12:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a shame that there is a lot of talk here about mixing up belief with verifiability, and yet you don't seem to recognise how you are all engaging in that problem. Significant points of concern about the Elwell article belong on the Elwell discussion page. But you need to be clear about what your concerns are, and how they might be fixed. Are these concerns really valid, or do they just exits in your worst suspicions? Clooneymark (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The discussion on this page under this header by and large has been about a number of topics. Where Elwell and others provide an example it has been largely to discuss general problems with BLPs, and other separate topics have been discussed too, however it has slipped across into the Elwell article here and there, to which you of course have contributed. Most of what has been discussed here would be off the subject on the Elwell talk page. And of course talk on a user talk page can be more conversational, which would be inappropriate on an article talk page. But thank you for your observation. I have replied to one of your comments on the Elwell talk page. Acabashi (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think our friend has gone for a few weeks. what do we now? edit the page to within what we believe are Wiki standards? Panderoona (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest that all current editors of the page take the week-end off. Why not spend a little time back in Lincolnshire unless you want time away from Wikipedia altogether. Acabashi (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I just restored my userpage to how it looked before he made his last 'visit'. I could hardly recognise it. Good idea to let the page rest for a few days. Later we can have a look with fresh eyes. MakeSense64 (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * sounds good to me, I have begun to work on Frank Munger but disappointingly there is not much I can find of the Science Museum exhibition. Dad has the Beneath the Skin book, so I may well pop over tomorrow and see what I can glean from that. I can also see if I cant get in touch with some of the people from Flight (past or present) in regard to images. And when I get fed up with that Ill for sure be back in Lincolnshire - I love those little articles. Hoping everyone has a nice relaxing weekend :) Best wishes Panderoona (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Somerby
Quick request Can you check out my write up on Somerby I am not sure if its okay to include ref to Vineyard. It does include ref to ancient finds - but is also a commercial site, Since theres not much else there, it seems reasonable-ish to include, However dont want to go wrong now and I dont mind losing it, I only included it to fluff the page out a bit. Also wish to disambig Old Somerby near Gainsborough and Somerby Leics, and don't know how. Since I wish to sort it sooner rather than later I am also posting this on Sitush page so apologies if you go and look and its already done. Many thanks Panderoona (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Done by Sitush so dont worry :) Panderoona (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll add my twopenneth too: Is there is an "Old" Somerby near Gainsborough? If there is, Grantham Old Somerby is in Kesteven, Lincs, and a Gainsborough Old Somerby would be in Lindsey, Lincs. Acabashi (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * OMG theres another somerby!
 * Okay the one I was trying to write about (and now had better go back and check coordinates against the places I mentioned within the hamlet) is the one near BRIGG. (West Lindsey)
 * There is ALSO Somerby by Gainsborough (which despite what I wrote above is the one I was unaware of, I always did get my Gainsboroughs and Granthams mixed up for some reason.)(also in West Lindsey)
 * Old Somerby is by Grantham. (Kesteven)
 * Then there is Somersby near Spilsby (East Lindsey)
 * and Somerby Leic
 * nearly as complicated as the many Carltons (North south great little castle and carlton le moorland). Not to mention the many Toyntons and Thorpes. shheeessh you have to be SO careful. Panderoona (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I had already spotted that there are a lot of them. This needs a great deal of care in both research and wording. I am tempted to suggest userfying the article until it is all sorted out. - Sitush (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Have been able to check using postcodes that the refs to Somerby in the infobox, Somerby Hall, Somerby Monument, Somerby St Margarets and Somerby Farmhouse are all referring to the one near Brigg DN38 postcode. Panderoona (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Question - if there are two Somerbys in West Lindsey, how can we disambiguate them to create a seperate page for the one that (at the moment) doesnt exist?Panderoona (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Is one near a big town and the other near a different big town? Acabashi (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * One is near Brigg, which is smallish town, the one uncreated is near Gainsborough which is a large town, so I get where you are coming from I think? So would something like "Somerby, near Gainsborough, Lincolnshire|Somerby do? Panderoona (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that but I don't know how acceptable that format is. BTW - I'm up in Lincolnshire for the day tomorrow, if you want me to take photos of particular villages around Grantham for articles that don't have photos, or ones that you are thinking of starting, let me know. Acabashi (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Might ask Keith D what he thinks regarding page naming then. Will take a look at the other Somerby and Old Somerby tomorrow, bit tired for being sure of what Im doing now, I like to tackle things like that fresh. With luck whatever I can come up with on those will help clarify the refs Sitush found.

Whereabouts are you going? I wouldnt want to suggest anywhere off your route. If you go near Brothertoft or Boston please give them a wave hello from me. Panderoona (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Grantham - but anywhere within a 15 mileish radius of there is possible. Acabashi (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing springs to mind offhand - Bit west for my usual places, my lot came down from East Lindsey into the Fens, which is why most of my edits are in those areas, although Im gradually spreading out. Will have a check through Lincs Places list and see if theres anything needed. back in a bit Panderoona (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have taken the liberty of looking only abt a 5-10 mile radius, and two places dont have much on Wikimedia Commons and they are: Little Gonerby and Harrowby. I may not work on them in immediate future but no doubt will before too long. Little Gonerby currently redirects to Manthorpe might be able to improve on that so an image would be a bonus (remember Wainfleet All Saints/Wainfleet St Mary). Harrowby is another place. There is no article on it at present although there is one for Harrowby Hall. Much appreciated. Panderoona (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I have moved the Somerby page as per suggestion by Keith D who found it was called Somerby (Juxta Bigby), Lincolnshire, and created Somerby, West Lindsey for the one near Gainsborough. Panderoona (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Atterby
I notice you have just done some edits on the Atterby article. A lot of the information in this was written by me a few years ago, soon after I started with WP. Surprised it has stayed intact for so long, hi! As I stated in the article talk page, a lot of the info came from a locally produced village guide by Peter Stopp. I realised even at the time that this sort of material doesn't really fall into the realm of WP recognised sources, but there again for little villages out in the sticks there is nothing else available. I lived up in that part of Lincolnshire in my youth so am very familiar with it, and the likes of Everett's buses were well known to the locals - but that of course is local hearsay which has no place in WP.

The Peter Stopp booklet is referenced in the article, and all the items you have flagged requiring citation are directly from that - with the exception of JD Everett now being a haulage company, which a simple Google can confirm, though it is probably trivia with no place in the article.

I would be interested in how in general in Project Lincolnshire we cope with situations like this, when the only available references are in locally produced material and there is unlikely to be any other sources. Taking all these things out because of this would result in a very short and boring article... Dsergeant (talk) 19:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I do sympathise with you Dsergeant. I have heard and read passed-down stories about my area of Lincolnshire, and my parents’ Yorkshire, that I fondly know are true, that would certainly make interesting  reading, but of course I can’t add them because nothing can be cited to reliable sources. And sadly, generally, a lot of such good stuff will disappear under the radar and perhaps disappear from history altogether because it has not been recorded in acceptable historical research documentation – and Wikipedia relies on that. I have no doubt that what you have written in good faith is true. Do you still have the Peter Stopp booklet? Is it published by a specific publisher, or is it a ‘vanity ‘self-publication? Is Peter Stopp contactable? It doesn’t necessarily matter, though it helps, if Stopp as a probable secondary source doesn’t have citations (to Lincs Archives) so long as the secondary source (his booklet) can be seen as weighty. If any claims within the Stopp source are Stopp’s own words and research, then that would be a primary source (within the secondary source) which would then come down to the reliability and notability of Stopp as a witness. I have added the inline ref to Stopp to the Everrett text - if it doesn't belong there but can go elswhere, please re-site it.


 * It maybe that some Lincs places have little to offer from reliable sources (and Project Lincs articles can be no different from any other type of Wikipedia article) and will never get beyond a boring stub. I have done a little more work on the article.


 * Acabashi (talk) 14:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I do have the Peter Stopp booklet, which is 48 pages and was published by 'Bishop Norton Village Hall Committee'. He says in the introduction 'I have simply been the collector of the photographs and information contained here' followed by a long list of names which largely seem to be local residents. So not 'original research' but most of it probably word of mouth of others... There are some extracts from the Lincolnshire Archives, but he doesn't reference specific things to this. It appears to have been professionally produced with financial support from Lincolnshire Community Council, West Lindsey District Council and others, so there are possibly copies in the local libraries. Peter Stopp does still seem to exist, there is someone of that name in Market Rasen, and he seems to have co-authored several other books (just from a Google). Dsergeant (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If the booklet has a publisher listed we can add that and possibly mention in some fashion Lincolnshire Community Council and West Lindsey District Council support. The first hurdle for book notability is an ISBN number, but I suppose it doesn't have one of those. If it was an older publication prior to 1975 it wouldn't matter so much as such wouldn't be expected. If we can note the pages in the booklet where any assertions in the article are found, that might help a bit. If we can't help the text then some editor in the future could come along and just wipe it from the article, which would be a shame. Acabashi (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I have added citations as suggested, with publisher and page numbers. Also moved it around a bit so that the text goes with those from Stopp. Still uncited are Everetts buses recent history and their continuance as a haulage company, which are not of course in Stopp - both those are public knowledge and easy to confirm on the web. Dsergeant (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine - I think we can leave this one for now - I'm not too exercised about what's there now. I might try to find an independent ref for the busses. Many thanks.Acabashi (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hiya Acabashi - saw this one and managed to add a couple of cites for you guys :) Best wishes A Panderoona (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Nice one - it's looking a healthy little stub now :) Acabashi (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * been working on villages beginning with C to keep you occupied as you work your way through the alphabet ;)
 * Panderoona (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Good idea, so we don't duplicate. Unless I find something easily available and obvious I haven't been concentrating on deep search for sources or extra text (something I might do later), but Copyediting and Wikifying to remove worst excesses where they exist and improve structure, which is the most important thing as none of the articles even if they are one sentence would fail on notability. I start the July Copyedit Drive in a few days so I might be off the boil. Also I have a design project that I have to really get to grips with - I've been using Wikipedia as displacement activity. But I'm sure I will dip into Lincs now and again for light relief. If you see an article headache that might take an arm and a leg in time to sort out, stick a Copyedit temp and a Wikify temp on it (as here Barrow Haven) and it could be picked up in the Drives over the next two months and save us quite a bit of initial work, and have the added value that the article will be in the watchlist of others who will then have a vested interest in making sure that it stays in good shape. Acabashi (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks both for your work. I reference the Peter Stopp booklet also on Spital-in-the-Street so will update that with similar changes. Dsergeant (talk) 06:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You are very welcome. My very first edit here was in a similar vein - tiny place called Brothertoft, and Id managed to find out a fair bit about where my dad was born, and thought Id add it to Wikipedia with no clue of what I was doing. What a journey - but it did teach me that probably 8 times out of 10, theres a reference to what you know somewhere out there. Whats more, I learnt far more about the place than I imagined, so its always worth plugging away at those citations :) Panderoona (talk) 08:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Acabashi - I have done all I could on the C's cant find anything much on Claye {historical} nor Conisham. They dont turn up on Gridreferencefinder nor on Google maps. Suggest removal? or leave in the vain hope someone knows what its all about. Ds are done. Have fun with the July Copyedit you know where I am if you fancy a chat. I dont know how much I will be around either with newborn coming home soon. OOh time to enjoy being a gran at last!! Best wishes Panderoona (talk) 08:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Nothing comes up for me through a temp for Claye or Conisham. They might be misspelt - I've tried variations but with no results. Conisham was added by User:Lincspoacher to the Lincolnshire article on 24 Feb 2005  before the list was split away to its own page - perhaps this user will know about a Conisham. Claye (Historical) was added on 6 Dec 2007 by Swordmasterman  - as you can see you probably won't get a reply from this user, so I would remove Claye. Acabashi (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * hmmm I somehow think Lincspoacher wont want to be contacted. So.... not sure what to do about that. Ill remove Claye and leave Conisham for now in the hope someone comes along knowing something one day. Panderoona (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

copyedit
If I were to try and copyedit some of the Lincs articles, say for instance, the Ds (a good one to start on as theres not many of them, and it keeps me away from clashing with your work) - what am I actually doing/looking for? I am assuming, accuracy, verification/citations, grammar and spelling, weeding out weasels, adding infoboxes images? Many thank A Panderoona (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose all the above, yes. I'm trying to add info boxes all round. If any inline cites are dead or don't support the text I remove them. If any assertion has been for more than a year I tend to remove the text if it is badly written. If external links are dead or don't go to the right place I either remove them or put a  next to them. I remove any link to commercial promo sites (pubs/hotels etc), and I certainly remove any weasels - any word with "ly" on the end is fair game. All this tends to flush-out the rubbish. After that add stuff in if you feel the need. As you know, most  articles can be rescued with a little re-writing for grammar and style and a couple of refs to get them going. However, some are nightmares - I've just hit on this monster: Bracebridge Heath - I occasionally add header temps with s in long articles such as this where lack of refs and original research is blatant. You may notice I am fulsome in my edit summary especially when I've been brutal - good tactic to forestall any gratuitous reversions or future rubbish additions - it does seem to work. Good of you to pick up on my little misses - I always miss something :) Acabashi (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * all sounds good - the dead links thing I forgot to mention. (theres always something!) Ill take a look at Bracebridge in a sec - I started on D and came up against a couple of big ones, in the Deepings - and apart from correcting an image whoopsie, I left them to start on something smaller till I get some confidence - after which I came up against a few Id written myself! So I moved on to Derthorpe which redirects to Well and am now flummoxed. Im sure in my dim distant memory is Well with Dexthorpe. However checking Dexthorpe out its near but much closer to Dalby. Can find nothing on Derthorpe, know how to un-redirect and move page then re-direct to Dexthorpe, but would very much value your opinion before I do - as theres no point linking it to Well if it would be better off linked elsewhere? Many thanks Panderoona (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Have managed to satisfy myself that it really should be Dexthorpe not Derthorpe. However, the Thomas Allen excerpt is accurate in that it recounts DERTHORPE (typo). Hmm how to resolve it? I have found several links to Dexthorpe I can use, but it is actually near Dalby, although it seems (and this is the bit Im finding hard to cite as its in Whites Directory and that "Historical Directories" sites links break - that the locals used Well church which is why it was called, at least in Whites directory, and Allens book, "Well with Dexthorpe". As opposed to "Dalby with Dexthorpe". Now how do I sort all that out? HELP please lol I made this page as rough idea of what Im thinking of? User:Panderoona/Dexthorpe Panderoona (talk) 07:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * In your Dexthorpe article I suppose you could say "Dexthorpe (aka Derthorpe) is a deserted medieval village"... with a cite to the Allen book ref for Derthorpe - assuming that these aren't two separate villages, which they might be as Allen sees Derthorpe as extant when he wrote his book. However, if you feel that this is an Allen typo in Well, you wouldn't add the "(aka Derthorpe)" in your Dexthorpe, and you could correct the quote in Well thus: "the chapelry of Derthorpe [Dexthorpe] and the township of Mawthorpe", using square brackets - this is quite legitimate if all sources but Allen one say Dexthorpe. You could also do it this way:  "the chapelry of Derthorpe [sic] and the township of Mawthorpe", and blue-link the "sic" to your Dexthorpe article. Square brackets are editor insertions in quoted text that qualify probable errors. You are allowed to correct minor obvious spelling mistakes in quotes without having to refer to the correction.


 * It could be the case that both spellings are correct, or one being an historic derivation of the other. It could be the case that it was written down differently in official records per the predilections or misinterpretations of those who recorded the name - we know this happens from censuses. Interesting fact: Middlesbrough was Middlesborough, until a civic official passed a paper to Whitehall spelling the town wrongly - the new spelling stuck.


 * However, Allen mitigates against your "deserted medieval village" bit for which you have ample evidence. On balance, I think these are two separate villages.


 * The quote from the actual text here begins at the bottom of p. 168. - he does say "Derthorpe"... at the bottom of this ebook you will find a useful place index with blue links to pages. You can get the ISBN for the latest edition of Allen here. BTW, when reffing books in Wiki we put the author's surname first, eg. Allen, Thomas, and with block quotes we don't add them with inverted commas. Hope all this helps. Good luck. Acabashi (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * the learning curve never ends does it ;) I think thats why I like it here, theres always something else to find out about, or something to learn re formatting. I am really suprised as Sitush found some other refs to Derthorpe. I need to sit down and go through them all and see if the two exist mutually exclusive in references which would suggest two different (but apparently equally legitimate) versions of the same name, or if anywhere they turn up together it would go a long way to prove seperate places. Thanks as always, I have added a request for this in the Lincs board as I think I need more info and hopefully! some local knowledge before going further. Panderoona (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * satisfied myself they are two places - Derthorpe always comes up in connection with Well, and Dexthorpe always with Dalby in book refs I have found. Thomas Allens book, as quoted on the Well page, ALSO lists Dexthorpe, a seperate entity. Well done and thanks :) Panderoona (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * OMG yes that is absolutely a nightmare. The whole section about who was in the census is original research and copyright. One has to be EXTREMELY careful about copying that information, that MUST be in the form of a transcription - and that is original research. I could have done the same with Brothertoft - but I used (heaven help me) the dreaded historical directories site to prove who was in The Hall - and when you look there no doubt the links will be broken as that site seems to break its links instantly. I can certainly verify personally that whats written is accurate, I know all of the Halls owners, including the present one, but if I cant PROVE it, or CITE it, you will be free to remove it unless I can find another source that doesnt break every 2 minutes. sheesh Panderoona (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you :)
Many thanks for this - appreciated. Not many think I'm diplomatic; I'm usually considered rather brusque I'm sure. We'll have to see if any impression has been made before we can consider if I deserve it or not :) Acabashi (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well as far as Im concerned you were extremely patient, very diplomatic and worked hard to achieve a good end result, and the barnstar is very well deserved so enjoy :) Panderoona (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dennis Elwell (astrologer)
Hi

Just to let you know that I have archived the request from the GOCE requests page. In case you did not see the comment, Diannaa has advised you to take the article to Peer review, rather than list it for a GOCE copyedit.
 * You should list the article at Peer Review for this type of review. Peer review. Thanks. --Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 01:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Hope this does not cause offence :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No problems - sent it for review - many thanks. Acabashi (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Byards Leap
Remember going there as a kid and dad telling me the story. I dont think he named the old witch, but he pointed out her suposed cottage, and told the story and showed us the horseshoes. - By the way back then they were set in the roadside, and not as they are now, just amongst the grass. I havent been able to come up with much on the story online that I cant be sure hasnt been nicked from Wiki in the past. Did you ever hear the tale? have you any ideas for referencing it? Thanks Panderoona (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't know much, if anything, about it I'm afraid, and can't find much online either. It's the kind of thing I wasn't interested in when young. I've gone through all the Lincs "B" places - all have info boxes and have had a scrub-up. Acabashi (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * the general gist of the story seems accurate enough if memory serves me right - however without references its original research. Ho hum. Well done you - have managed to get as far as J with creating pages. Panderoona (talk) 07:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, so you believe it's all true ? I've managed to find a few more before "J", but I'm not letting you know what - I want some left for me :) Acabashi (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * hahaha no I dont believe its all true, just a local legend. Oh I see, I shall try and ensure I save some for you ;) Panderoona (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

GOCE May barnstar

 * Well done - and well deserved :) Panderoona (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 04:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at the Conflict of interest noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have some information. You are invited to comment at the relevant thread. Thank you.

MakeSense64 (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the request. I will look at the page and will add to it if I feel I have anything constructive to add. Acabashi (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

July drive checks
Hi

I just selected Frans Andersson as a random article to check as part of the July drive checks. Only a few comments this time :¬)


 * "who sang major roles at the Cologne Opera, La Scala, Vienna Opera, Berlin State Opera, and Bayreuth"
 * It is important to differentiate between singing at an opera house and being part of the opera company. Though not necessarily true, an artist that is not part of the company and sings is usually held in higher esteem than one who is - in other words being part of the company is less desirable/notable in most cases (although the wage is possibly more constant and stand-ins are not normally considered).


 * Numbers of less than three words are normally spelled out - "six", not 6.
 * "the extent of his voice" - usually "range"
 * Mefistos - not really a character that I can identify in any opera, normally Mefistopheles or Mephistopheles. More impotantly you make it seem as if Mefisto was a part in Don Giovanni - "where at Krefeld he sang a Mefisto, followed by other parts in Don Giovanni"

A blindingly difficult article to copy-edit though! Well done :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for all this. I did dab Mephisto but left it as was as I thought it might be a "continental" version of the name. I had to make a judgement on "gardener, commercial traveler, and soldier in Stockholm", as lede and Early life add-up to vagueness - born in Denmark but spent time in Sweden – where was he during these (not immediately apparent as Stockholm) employments – I thought I’d cover both possibilities by writing "gardener and commercial traveler, and as a soldier in Stockholm". I think I ruminate over-long on minutiae in copyedits – that’s why they take me so long. However I do appreciate your feedback and will look at your re-edits with an eye to improve my copyediting in future, and certainly take onboard your specific points. Very much appreciated. Acabashi (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yew-tree
Thanks too ! Other subject : do you have information about the old yew in the St Nicholas churchyard ? We can see it on the right part of the picture. It must be an old one. Nortmannus (talk) 13:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * None at all I'm afraid. I'm intending to get up to Fulbeck within the week to check out the hall (re History text) - if I get a chance I'll ask around about the Yew.


 * Trying to find ISBNs for your books - the Albert Smith has an ISBN for a 1956 print but I can't find the 1972. Is your Hoad the The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, ISBN 0192830988 ? The Historisches Ortsnamenlexikon von Schleswig-Holstein is ISBN 352902726X. and Les noms des communes et anciennes paroisses de lEure is ISBN 2708400673 - if you want to put these in - always helps for book notability and looks good.


 * Best wishes. Acabashi (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Lede citations
I was interested in what you had to say about the lede not needing to include citations. I had been wondering about this myself, because I've noticed that the daily featured articles tend not to include lede references. Can you tell me if it's a MOS requirement to avoid lede citations, or is it (as I assume) that it's just bad practice and those references are not deemed necessary because the lede should only be summarising what is explained more clearly below?

I was planning to bring this up with regard to the Astrology page where all the comments in the lede are referenced - however, for the time being I think it's a good thing that they are because the main body text is being worked over and editors are trying to establish which of the comments can be substantiated. A lot of the references don't connect to the points being made in the article - which seems to be the result of random cuts in content where refs are left in innapropriate places.

BTW, I joined the copy-editors guild thinking that I would have time to explore that section more thoroughly than I have. For now, that's probably not a good idea for me - do you think I should remove my name from the list? Thanks Zac  Δ talk   09:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You are broadly right in your first point. I think featured articles will tend not to have cites in the lede because what is said there reflects that which is covered and well-referenced further down, and is also written in a NPOV style. Of course stuff such as birth dates, where born and geographical stuff, unless very complex or controversial, can usually be taken on trust anywhere in an article, as can common things that we can assume everyone accepts as factual. MOS lays out a guideline on lede citations and advises a balanced view - which is why I said that lede citations are "not essential" - implying that sometimes they are relevant. I think this is yet another area where WP allows interpretation; interpretation leads to argument, and acres of text and hours of time on talk pages that could be better used in developing articles.


 * In the Zodiac page, to have a lede first sentence that requires a cite gives me the impression that there are a number of views here, (one or all of which might be valid), which to my mind doesn't do the article any favours straight away - ledes should aim to be incontrovertible, even when laying-out opposing views. If there isn't a general consensus on the Zodiac as it applies to Astronomy that doesn't need a cite then we are in trouble, as the article sets-off with what seems to be a debate as to what Astronomy-Zodiac is - someone like me, who has minimal knowledge of Astronomy and even less of Astrology, might find this uncertainty confusing.


 * As for Astrology, given the size of the lede, and the contentious nature of opposing views on Astrology, I think it reasonable for some lede cites to be kept or refined here. Although the lede is only four paragraphs (complying with MOS guidelines), I think it is too long and contains too much detailed information that could be added further down. The value of the lede, apart from summing-up all that goes below, is that it excites people's interest in reading the rest of the article. I read the Astrology lede and my eyes glazed over - I needed two or three goes to begin to get to grips with it, which doesn't help the article for the average or uninitiated reader. If I took a free hand to copyedit this lede I would put and develop the sentence "According to Gallup opinion polls..." somewhere else as it is a detailed development of the broad point in the previous sentence, and I would put and develop the sentence "Astrology cannot be classified as science because..." into the "Criticism" section for the same reason. I would then try to compact the rest a little if possible for a more succinct and digestible read.


 * As for the Copyedit Guild, you weren't on the Drive list anyway. If you are interested in the project and have time in September please try to have a go - it really hones writing and compositional skills, with editors ready to give supportive advice. Acabashi (talk) 13:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That's exactly what I did in a series of edits here
 * Moved the heavily cited second and third paragraphs out to their relevant sections in the article, leaving a more readable and short lede.
 * Of course my proposal got promptly reverted. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your detailed reply. Your comments on the Astrology page lede are especially valuable. The controversiality of the topic and political sensitivites underlying the page are currently causing intense focus on the accuracy of the comments, to the detriment of user-friendliness and readibility in my opinion. Hopefully this is a stage in the process. I hardly dare ask but it would be great if you could contribute more from a copy-edit point of view a little later down the line. It would probably be wasted effort at the moment whilst the content debates are still so active. I hope to improve the history section but realise I have to work on a number of related spin-off articles too, so it's likely to be slow work unless there is more input from other editors. Come September I'd be happy to stick a toe in the water with one or two articles if I can. That month is looking like a good one for me as things currently stand. Regards, Zac  Δ talk   14:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi again Acabashi, just wanted you to know that I made a notice about your feedback on the lede issue to the editors working on the astrology page (here). No response to it, but it's quiet now; I think a few have gone on holiday. Without removing any references from points being developed, I reshuffled some content and simplified some sentences, so it would be great if you could find time to look over that again, and give a report of how many times your eyes glaze over this time :)  The lede will need revision in the future because there is a lot of activity building content now, so just an informal opinion and highlight of 'clunky' areas will do.


 * However, one section is more or less what we see as 'done' so I also wondered if you would find time to give that section some sort of appraisal too? Doesn't have to be detailed but I'm sure it will be useful to have new eyes looking over it with the issue of general readibility and WP MOS in mind.  The section is the first one under the lede: Etymology and basic definitions. I would personally value your input if you can find the time for this. Regard, 13:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Just saying thanks for commenting there! Cheers, -- Zac  Δ talk! 10:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)