User talk:Duncshine/Archive 1

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:


 * Be Bold!
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
 * Meet other new users
 * Learn from others
 * Play nicely with others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us about you

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! Perfecto 07:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

niad and lifesize
Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia as we drive for print or DVD publication; see the welcome page to learn more. Thanks. Perfecto 07:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Frome Valley
no problem. not sure really if the pubs belong on the article (for the reasons perfecto says above) but the rest is fine. hope you enjoy being a wikipedian - good luck!  BL Lacertae -  kiss the lizard  22:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * hi again. im not really an expert on whether things like the list of pubs belongs there but heres a two cents worth anyway :) there have been articles that were simply lists of pubs which have been deleted on wp in the past and certainly i wouldnt think that lists of all the pubs in the uk (or anywhere else) would be that encyclopedic. and i dont think that an article on every pub would be a good idea here either. BUT there are articles on notable pubs - ones famous for some reason or another and theyre perfectly ok, so its more a question of where the limit of notability is. you might also get away with adding links to articles about those pubs on goodpubguide on those articles tho some editors might consider that spam. as far as articles like the frome valley one, if the pubs are generally used as starting points for different walks then theyre probably worth having in the article but it would be fairly borderline so dont be surprised if another editor decides theyre not worth having there. that's the thing about wp - every editor has a different idea of whether something is going to be noteworthy enough for an article. hope that helps!  BL Lacertae -  kiss the lizard  00:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Winterbourne Viaduct
no problem (again :) - glad to be able to help. a bridge shouldnt get a geo-stub since its a structure not a geographical feature (those stubs are kept for things like hills lakes and villages. individual buildings get struct-stub or one of its varieties. this article would normally get UK-struct-stub and bridge-struct-stub, and possibly UK-rail-stub.  BL Lacertae -  kiss the lizard  00:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

British Pub Guide
I have checked out your website. I applaud you for doing it, though the information is not yet of a standard where it can be compared to such sites as Beerintheevening or Pubutopia. We do not need endless lists of websites with the same information - two is plenty, and we certainly do not need links to up and coming websites which contain very little information. I shall have to again remove your link as it only serves to promote your website rather than help or assist Wiki. It is against Wiki policy to act as a promotional tool for other websites. Have you made other such links on Wiki? SilkTork 09:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Emersons Green, Winterbourne, Gloucestershire, Downend, Bristol, etc. The links on those articles to your own website is questionable, though I can certainly see a value in them at this stage and I shan't do anything about it. I would suggest, though, that your behaviour could be seen as self-promotional spam and it might be better if you stopped adding such links. SilkTork 10:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. It might be useful for you to read through External links. The section: "Web directories: When deemed appropriate by those contributing to an article on Wikipedia, a link to one web directory listing can be added, with preference to open directories (if two are comparable and only one is open). If deemed unnecessary, or if no good directory listing exists, one should not be included." is useful. At the moment the Public House article has more than one web directory link. It is possible that the current list may be cut down even more. Despite your admirable arguments for your own site it should be clear that the more open, larger, popular and comprehensive sites such as beerintheevening are more likely to be acceptable to a wider range of editors and readers than a site in which few pubs have any comments at all. As for the individual links to your own site you are making to various articles, this is very questionable. I haven't the time or inclination to go through all your edits, but the ones I browsed initially, and the few more I browsed just now seem to consist of nothing more than links to your site. Regardless of your site being commercial or not, the links are intended to attract attention to your own site. If you feel that you have information about a local pub that is notable and worthy of inclusion on an article it would be preferable for you to do that than add another link to your own site. I have noted that you have previously been informed that your activities are unwelcome. Please take these informal warnings to heart. I think you may have much to offer Wikipedia, though not by adding links to your own website. SilkTork 12:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It was a hard decision to remove the links. What pushed me was seeing the sheer volume of linking you had done. I then considered that, to my knowledge, and I haven't done a full survey, there are over 45 pub listing websites in the UK, not to mention those in America and Australia, and not including one run by a couple of friends of mine. I would hate to see every pub listing site start to put links on Wiki. If we are to have one, then it should be BeerInTheEvening. The Alexa ranking for B.I.T.E. is 15,724 - which is considerable. The ranking for your site is 773,788, which is commendable, but clearly not in the same area as BITE. So, if you were genuine about wanting to give people added value in the article you would be linking to BITE rather than your own site. Then, added to that, is the fact that the pub links were borderline relevant to the article topic. Wiki is an encyclopedia not a web directory, and there are many links that one could add to an article on a village - pubs, estate agents, businesses, shops, etc. All these things could be argued to be somehow useful - but better by far to have one link to the village's own website in which they list such things. I like the way you are handling this awkward situation, and I applaud you for making your site and wanting to make people aware of it. I mean you no ill will, and I would suggest you get in touch with village and town websites and find out if they want to have links to your website. That might be more appropriate. Cheers! SilkTork 09:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

PintsWest
I know PintsWest. It is one of the best (possibly THE best?) CAMRA newsletters. Clean, attractive, well laid out and with decent, well written articles. I think I may have used it for reference at least once in one of my articles. Nice one! SilkTork 10:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Rochester, Medway
I just looked at Wiki article on Rochester. I think that is a good example of external links. There are two - one is the local council, and the other is a local guide. Such links are appropriate. There are no individual links to pubs, shops, or other areas of "potential interest" as the tendency then would be to open the floodgates for Wiki to become a free web hosting service. You know I like pubs, and if I were in charge of Wiki I would be happy to have every article linked in some way to a pub, but - let's be fair and honest here - this is an encyclopedia, not a web directory. If there is a NOTABLE pub in an area, then write about it in the article. But if the pubs are not notable, then a simple: "there are three pubs", should be enough. Wiki is not a tourist guide.

Anyway, you are of course free to continue to link to your site. As you say, it is at this moment simply a difference of opinion between two Wiki editors. If you did continue I would put a Spam template on your TalkPage. If you continued after that then we would eventually end up taking the dispute to Mediation and other processes in which you could put forward your views and we would seek Consensus. Just because I am disagreeing with you doesn't mean the matter is at an end. My authority here is exactly the same as yours. The choice you are now faced with is: Continue linking, with the possibility that at the end of a long arbitration process the consensus would be in your favour, or Apply your knowledge and writing skills to Wiki without the controversial aspect of linking to your own site. I would, of course, favour the latter course as it would mean that the time I spend on Wiki is devoted to building Wiki, rather than squabbling with someone who appears to be a decent guy I would enjoy having a drink with. SilkTork 11:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Spamming
O gosh - I never thought you were a commercial spammer. I know your intentions were honourable. In fact, most people who enter links or articles are genuine in their interest. When entering into debates on AfD Wikipedians do not take intention into account because, mostly, people do believe what they have done is in the best interest of Wiki. The debates are about the article or link, not the intention. I occasionally hover over the debates and get involved when I feel people are ganging up on an article. I feel proud to say I have saved a number of articles and categories. The one I am most fond of is Category:Fuck. The category is still under a cloud, but this time for renaming, rather than deletion. Go take a look and give your opinion! SilkTork 11:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Folly
No Problem. You're more of an authority in this area than me.Fullerov 14:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Public House External Links
I like what you're doing there. It would be good to look at some of those sites and decide if they are worthwhile, or if there are better ones to take their place. It looks to me like some could be dropped - I think there are bigger and better ones - such as pubcrawler and BeerAdvocate's BeerFly.

I also think you could be doing something on the beer scene in your area. Or doing some research on other areas. You write well, and have a good mind. SilkTork 22:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Beer organisation
It was arranged like that once before, and then gradually whittled down so there were less categories. I'm not sure which is the better approach. Having so many categories means the Contents list becomes rather long and could be both unwieldy and less aesthetically pleasing. Pitch that against the ease of clicking on an item in the contents list and going straight to that section. However, at the moment if one clicks on Ingredients, one gets the same result as clicking on Water - because the sections are so small. It may be that because each section is so small there is really little benefit to be gained from further subdividing. Perhaps the Beer Style section - but not the other sections? I really like what you have done with the External Links section! That's great. Cheers! SilkTork 22:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Pub names
O gosh! Yes. That article is in serious need of a make-over. The introduction needs a total rewrite. Some actual history put in place instead of the 3rd form babble and nonsense that is currently there. I think you are probably the man to do it! I still have some unease about the new layout of the Beer article, especially the Ingredients section. But I'm doing nothing. Just letting it sit. I think I'll leave it up to you to decide if you think its an improvement. I'm totally undecided! SilkTork 18:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Beer
While browsing Wiki I came upon a useful guide to UK Villages placed in a category: Category:Villages in England. And I thought of your website. I'm not sure the Pub category is the right place, but I have put it as a resource in the Beer Portal. The Beer Portal is a neglected resouce centre. I started it, but nobody has got involved. Other areas of Wiki seem to have active Portals - but the Beer Project in general seems rather limp. I think people tend to have more enthusiasm than knowledge, so eventually drift away to help in areas where they may have less enthusiasm, but more knowledge. SilkTork 20:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiPubs link
The wikipubs link on the Public house article. It has very few pubs. It imitates Wikipedia, but is not affiliated. There are many pub listing websites - I don't see the value of this one above the others. What do you think? SilkTork 20:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 22:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge suggestion

 * Interesting. There is a Greater Manchester article and a Manchester article. There is also a Greater Birmingham article and a Birmingham article, though the Greater Birmingham article is very much a stub. It looks from the evidence of the Greater Manchester example that it is possible to produce a decent article, but that may not be the case for every region. You could propose a merger and see what other editors say. This page gives advice: Merging and moving pages. Essentially you put this tag  on the Bristol page and  on the Greater Bristol page. And then you put your reasons for the suggested merge on the talk page. Good luck! SilkTork 11:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)