User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2020/January

Orphaned non-free image File:BradfordColliery.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:BradfordColliery.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have removed the template as the image is now used to illustrate Bradford Colliery. Giano    (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I was just looking at the same thing. It would seem that the editor that removed it from the article is more or less correct. This image does appear to be of Ellesmere Colliery, Walkden not Bradford Colliery. I've already checked and we don't have an article for it. I've been looking for an alternative image and unsurprisingly can't find a free one. Of non-free options, there is one about half-way down or the one used on the NMRS entry . However I'm not uber-confident with the fair-use element if you or anyone can assist?  TiB  chat  19:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No use asking me. Collectively, I’ve probably spent many years of my life in the Disunited Kingdom, but have seldom been brave enough to explore further north of Oxfordshire. It gets very scary, dangerous and quite uncivilised after that point. There’s probably people like Eric on every street corner. Anyway, I expect one colliery looks quite like another, does it matter? Giano    (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn’t know a colliery from a hole in the ground. EEng 02:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Quite! And, with luck, neither will anyone else. Giano    (talk) 12:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Is that really your attitude to accuracy in articles? On a 'Good Article' too? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Giano   (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Assuming the claim that this is actually a photo of a different colliery is correct, then those arguing for its removal are right in this case. Yes, collieries all look the same, but for these Red Wall towns they were once the most important structure in the town; misidentifying them is akin to using an image of Spaffham-up-the-Wall Parish Church to illustrate the article on the neighbouring village of Grabham-by-the-Pussy on the grounds that most medieval churches are virtually identical in design—it's the kind of thing that gets the locals rightfully annoyed because it looks like we're disrespecting their heritage. (Besides, if collieries are really so generic in appearance, that's an argument against ever using fair-use images to illustrate them at all.) &#8209; Iridescent 13:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If it really isn’t BC then remove it, but it seems odd to call it something it’s not. Giano    (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's just kill this "all collieries look the same" once and for all. The idea, "I don't understand the difference to that field of knowledge, therefore that field and its distinctions is trivial and unworthy of attention here" is pernicious elitist nonsense (and not something I ever saw Eric advocating).
 * Most obviously, Elsemere had two shafts on that site, Bradford had one. Also, and more interestingly although this 1947 photo seems to be too old anyway, Bradford was one of the pits which had a large investment post-NCB nationalisation, and was converted to Koepe winding (probably so as to wind heavier skips, rather than cages of small trams). This uses a continuous rope and headgear with two sheave pulleys, one above the other. It's popular in Germany, rare in the UK, and so being one of these NCB pits uprated to use it would be both interesting for the article, and a nicely illustrative photo (or before- and after- pair), if we can find them. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

If you believe those captioning the images here and here (Ellesmere Colliery) and here (Bradford Colliery) are correct (these show the site from the opposite direction to the Wikipedia image which claimed to be from a Coal Board album), then I'd say that the removal was correct. Bradford Colliery appears to have always had two tall smokestacks nearby (not in the image in question) and if you look at the scans of the back of the photos here, you will see "New mill in background" referring to the building seen in the first image (this reverse of the photo also states it is from a Coal Board album). This building (the "new mill") appears to be the high vantage point that the Wikipedia image is taken from. That and the railway and the road in the foreground should be enough to locate this site on modern maps of Walkden to confirm this either way. Removing from the article for now until we can be sure of this. Carcharoth (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * But then by the time it is verified (or not) the image will have been deleted. Of course, were Eric here, he woudl be able to clear this up as he is very clever at things like this, but sadly, he is not. But it's so nice that so many people are interested in his work. Giano    (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The indefatigable User:Serial Number 54129 has now started Ellesmere Colliery, & I've boldly added the pic. As apparently a pic copyrighted by 1947 by a UK government-owned corporation, I'd imagine it is PD under the government open IP policy, and it would be nice if an expert could confirm and adjust the pic file accordingly. As a by-product, User:Carcharoth has spotted that Manchester Road redirects to Missouri Route 100, an outrage that somebody should do something about! Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I turned it into a disambiguation page for now. It should surprise no-one that there are many roads called 'Manchester Road'. There were two existing links to Manchester Road, both from the one in East London's Docklands, referring to the incredibly useful article A1206 road (Great Britain) (I am being sarcastic here, in case that is not obvious). Carcharoth (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Always best to put a spoiler alert before sarcasm or even wit. Amazingly, there are some people here who are, to put it politely, a little intense. Their sense of humour is not overdeveloped and they can take things a little literally. Giano    (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Engole
This is one of the times I really regret Eric’s untimely departure from us. I’ve noticed several of our more historical and informative pages are citing Engole as a reliable source. Apparently, it’s a rival to Wikipedia. Yet, I can’t find a Wikipedia article on it. Eric (love him or hate him) was always so informed on these things and would normally have written such a page if prompted. Who else can do this? Giano   (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If anyone's citing Engole they shouldn't be, as while its review processes are superior to Wikipedia's it's still ultimately a user-generated site; as with citing Wikipedia, one should be citing to the references they cite, rather than directly to their article. (Their content is all CC By-SA so we can import it verbatim provided it's appropriately credited.) An Engole article here currently wouldn't survive, as they don't have the necessary coverage in third party sources that I can see.
 * No need for coyness; Eric has publicly confirmed on-wiki that he's one of the authors there. One can usually work out which Wikipedia exile is responsible for each of their articles without too much difficulty. &#8209; Iridescent 21:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am never coy. However, Engole is now being cited on Wikipedia so we do need a page on it. I expect it’s as reliable as any other online source. If Eric is, as you say, involved, probably more so. I sometimes feel a lot of our pages here are poorly written plagiarism. I wonder if Engole is any better? Giano    (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd write it (for Eric), but I can't find any sources. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And I'd assist.  Cassianto Talk  22:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It only appears to be cited once on the whole of Wikipedia (the others are talkpage discussions of Engole, plus one use of it as an external link). Probably easier to just change the citation on James Roscoe to the source used on the Engole page being cited, as that allows people to check for themselves. Assuming Engole is sticking to "no original research", I can't imagine any occasion when it would be better to cite them rather than cite whatever they've cited. &#8209; Iridescent 22:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Obviously, the Smithsonian is a crap, useless body which uses dodgy refs because it used Engole as a reliable source, in this article. I think we have to lose this superior air when referring to rivals. What’s that British proverb? “They who laugh last, laugh.......” Giano    (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It only appears to be cited once on the whole of Wikipedia (the others are talkpage discussions of Engole, plus one use of it as an external link). Probably easier to just change the citation on James Roscoe to the source used on the Engole page being cited, as that allows people to check for themselves. Assuming Engole is sticking to "no original research", I can't imagine any occasion when it would be better to cite them rather than cite whatever they've cited. &#8209; Iridescent 22:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Obviously, the Smithsonian is a crap, useless body which uses dodgy refs because it used Engole as a reliable source, in this article. I think we have to lose this superior air when referring to rivals. What’s that British proverb? “They who laugh last, laugh.......” Giano    (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Encole’s PR is obviously less slick and clever than Wikipedia’s. Perhaps it needs to announce a momentous, milestone article and then fix it to look politically correct and appealing and then get citeable publicity. Giano   (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I would imagine that even if it were created, using such reliables like the OED, NYT, BBC, etc, Eric's fan club would be registering it at AfD quicker than it took to write the thing in the first place.  Cassianto Talk  22:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * It certainly offers its share of unintended humor. My favorite so far is Charles White FRS (4 October 1728 – 20 February 1813) was an English physician and a co-founder of the Manchester Royal Infirmary, along with local industrialist Joseph Bancroft. EEng 23:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry EEng, <my sense of humour must be very underdeveloped or something is being lost in translation, you are going to have to explain that joke to me. I wonder how much of Engole you had to read to find that brilliant (I’m sure it must be, we hen I get it) joke. Giano    (talk) 09:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the same sentence leads in the Wikipedia article Charles White (physician). The Wikipedia article, created by a certain Malleus Fatuorum ten years ago, has been transferred entire into Engole. I notice they say: 'Some articles may contain text from Wikipedia written by us and freely available under the CC By-SA 3.0 Creative Commons Licence'. That being so, I wonder why anyone should wish to refer to Engole instead of to the original Wikipedia article. John O&#39;London (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Their article on Ellesmere Colliery is erm, a bit better than we managed. I think it has a lot of potential, it's obviously still at a very early stage but I like it. As we all know Wikipedia is not optimised for producing quality articles and is most widely known for its inaccuracy. When you do create a good article, it requires regular attention or it will rot, and dealing with the noobes (and some experienced users) requires a great deal of patience. I can imagine a future when quality WP articles, whose creators are no longer able to contribute, get ported to Engole as a reference point. And likely even higher quality Engole articles become the basis for creating good stuff here. As it is too early to be for Engole to be considered RS, how to people feel about adding their articles as external links? In cases where the Engole article is much better than ours surely this would be good? TiB chat  18:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, Iridescent has, erm, already given you a roadmap. Since Engole publishes its material under a free licence, all you need to do is copy what you like over; as long as you WP:ATTRIBUTE Engole as the source, and follow our relevant editing policies and guidelines, you're away to the races. ——  SN  54129  10:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It would help if Engole rated each of their articles upfront - is it (1) a good, accurate Wikipedia article (but presumably in its peak form before later contributors mucked around with it) simply ported across; (2) a Wikipedia article with updates, corrections and additions - and some indication of the extent of these; or (3) a brand-new article (in which case, frankly, I'd like to be told who wrote it!)? One particular article on Engole I'm interested in is a Wikipedia featured article - it hasn't had much serious editing since 2013 and really needed updating and revision. The transfer to Engole has introduced an error of fact (or at least an ambiguity, due to the change in the referencing system) as well as a mistake in the formatting. John O&#39;London (talk) 09:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)