User talk:Keith D/Archive 32

B-class on WPNEE
Hi, I've noticed you reducing several NEE articles from B-class to start: it seems that a user was enthusiastically adding B-class to several hundred articles just over five years ago. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It was just a couple of unreferenced railway stations that I felt could not be B-class, not sure if that project is very active as not seen much activity on it. Keith D (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Holiday
OK Keith. Will do.--Harkey (talk) 19:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - April 2012
Delivered April 2012 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage. → Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page. → Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 05:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

RAF Warwick
Hi Keith D

I hope you enjoyed your holiday

Thanks for the help request for RAF Bempton

On the RAF Warwick article there is a notice at the top saying something about prose, I have had a look at the help page but its a bit confusing. Do you know what it means?

Gavbadger (talk) 00:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

P.s do not forget to remove the holiday notice from your talk page.


 * Hi, I am guessing that the user who placed it thinks that the bulleted list in the "Accidents and incidents" is better rendered as prose. May be you could ask if that is what they are referring to.


 * I know the holiday banner is still in place - I was leaving for now while I tackle the watchlist which could take a few days by the number of changes that have taken place in the last 10 days! Keith D (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

RAF Thorney Island
Hello again

I am currently working on an article for RAF Thorney Island (which is in my sandbox "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gavbadger/sandbox") but it's the first time i have created a such large article from scratch and i cannot find a good way to format it.

Another editor said to have the major units within a table but what is a major unit because the squadron change quite rapidly.

Have you got any good ideas? (Thanks in advance)

Gavbadger (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi again, sorry I do not have any good ideas on first glance. The table looks as though it might work but will need short entries, maybe you could use notes to cover the extended detail. Keith D (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Willoughby, Warwickshire
Hi, I'm working on the quality scale for the WikiProject Warwickshire and currently on Willoughby, Warwickshire and i am not sure if it is worth B or C class because their is a section that has a section lacking citations template and there are five citation missing templates throughout the article.

I think it's worth between B or C class but closer to B.

What do you think?

Gavbadger (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi again, I would go for a C-class. As you say there are several fact tags and the Railway section is also unreferenced. There is no images in the article, though there is a link to commons category with available images. Keith D (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * B-Class has a checklist for general cases, see WP:BCLASS. If you can tick all six, give it B; otherwise C. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I seem to remember that WP:WikiProject Warwickshire has a checklist in the template as I was ask to set it up by someone and they then stopped editing. Keith D (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It does Keith D, i just completely forgot about it Gavbadger (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Warwickshire articles by quality and importance graph
Hi Keith, i placed a WikiProject Warwickshire articles by quality and importance graph on the WP:Warwickshire project page but it doesn't seem to update as i have changed two ratings in the last 30 minutess but the graph has not updated yet, the tool on a different website has updated

Any ideas what i did wrong?

Gavbadger (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, you did nothing wrong. The table is updated by BOT WP 1.0 bot that should run daily and was doing so until mid March but has only run a couple of times in April for some reason. You are probably looking at the information the BOT copies on to wikipedia when it runs. Keith D (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Keith D.

Kineton
Good Evening

I'm doing the quality review for Kineton and it passes B2-B5 but B1 has me a bit confused, the article has four references (2 websites, 2 books) and nine external links but B1 says about is it reference suitably, can four references be suitable? I'm thinking of giving it C class until more references can be found. What do you think?

Gavbadger (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would go with a c-class as there are not that many references. There are really too many external links, may be some of them could become references? There is also an embedded external link that can be converted to a reference. Keith D (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gavbadger (talk) 23:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Assessment
Hi, i got my recently created RAF Thorney Island article assessed and i failed on B1 but passed B2-B5. If there are "citation needed" tags on the article would that be a fail for B1?

Gavbadger (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, usually that would fail a B1. By the way there is a problem with the havard refs on that article not linking correctly. Keith D (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, all the information with the citation templates were from the previous version when it was on the Thorney Island (West Sussex) and so references have been tricky to find. I will have a look at the ref problem in the morning. Night Gavbadger (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2012‎ (UTC)
 * Yes - time for bed. Keith D (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The harvard linking problem is because the full citations for Halley 1988 and Jefford 2001 are plain text, so there is no anchor to link to. There are two fixes for this:
 * (a) enclose each of the existing full citations in a, like this:
 * this uses to create the anchor; or (b) format each full citation using, like this:
 * here, the anchor is generated automatically by the harv parameter. -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I had not looked at the page code just viewed the article, also I have not come across the first variant you gave. Keith D (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The second is by far the commoner technique, but the first has the benefit of satisfying the last paragraph of WP:CITEVAR. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I had not looked at the page code just viewed the article, also I have not come across the first variant you gave. Keith D (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The second is by far the commoner technique, but the first has the benefit of satisfying the last paragraph of WP:CITEVAR. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

High Beam
Thanks Keith. I just added my name to the list. I had to email the paper lad. That woke him up!!--Harkey (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Walkerwith
Hi Keith,

Just started this page, unfortunately, after developing it I found I'd stupidly got the name wrong (Walkerith). Walkerith doesn't have its own page but is mentioned on East Stockwith, where I got the idea from. I couldn't move the page as it diverts back to East Stockwith. I think there is just enough for its own article, as it is a distinct settlement and 1.5 miles away from Stockwith - further away, and with more info than some with separate articles I've seen. If you think it's worth it, can you expedite a move. Many thanks.

Acabashi (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok done. I did not bother leaving a rediect behind. Keith D (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for that Keith. Acabashi (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with the history-merges

 * Thanks for the help with the history-merges. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Tool server - warwickshire stats
Hi

There is a problem with the tool server access as I cannot access the site for the quailty and importance stats.

Can you access it?

A error message appears when you try to connect

Any ideas?

Gavbadger (talk) 00:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, I get an error message when connecting. May be report at Village Pump if there is no report there already. Keith D (talk) 00:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
jcgoble3 (talk) 23:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Dial codes
I've just noticed this series of edits:. I've never seen this before and don't know how kosher they are. Is this an acceptable alternative? Cheers. Acabashi (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not seen that before. Keith D (talk) 02:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

RAF Mepal
Good Afternoon Keith

I want to move/merge Mepal Airfield to RAF Mepal but i'm not sure how to do it and also does the history page move with it?

Gavbadger (talk) 11:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As RAF Mepal is just a redirect then moving Mepal Airfield to it should move the history with it and if you check the box the talk page should also be moved over. At a guess though the move will not work as there is an edit on the redirect and the redirect will need deleting before the move can take place. If that is the case I can do the delete for you. Keith D (talk) 11:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It failed just like you said it would. Can you delete RAF Mepal please? Gavbadger (talk) 11:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Deleted. So it should move now. Keith D (talk) 11:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Keith D Gavbadger (talk) 12:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Carthusian
You restored the word "Roman" to the article Carthusian, even though Wikipedia throughout uses the term "Catholic" in preference to "Roman Catholic" (and this has been heavily discussed before being agreed upon, as you can see in the talk page for Catholic Church). Moreover, the links you modified the article to point to are simply redirects to "Catholic Church" and Religious Institute (Catholic), both of which reflect this site's practice of preferring not to use the term "Roman Catholic". I can see an argument for making an exception in the context of ecumenical discussion, when the word "Catholic" may come across as obscure in certain contexts, however an article dedicated to a contemplative order of monks is most certainly not such an ambiguous case. (If you disagree with the consensus, I hope you will participate in the larger discussion rather than go about reverting less-followed articles in the hopes that most of the participating editors will not see them.) --194.98.58.121 (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We have had this on this article before and Roman is used to distinguish between the different Catholic traditions directly. The link is a redirect but that does not matter you can to the desired article but people reading this article should have no need to go via the link to know which tradition is being talked about. Keith D (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Right on! I've taken this same logic to the articles on Carmelites, Dominican Order, Society of Jesus, Cistercians, Order of Friars Minor Capuchin, and Premonstratensian. I hope you will agree that the same logic should govern all such articles within the same encyclopaedia. --92.142.55.101 (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * May be it should apply to all but see the history of this particular article where the removal of Roman has been reverted by a number of editors. Keith D (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

RAF Jurby
Hi Keith D

I've been tinkering with the RAF Jurby article and wanted your opinion on the Timeline section. Do you think that particular section would pass B quality scale review?

If no would a table be better?

P.s and yes i know the citations are terrible throught the section and article.

Gavbadger (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for delay, I was catching up on an afternoon of changes, wish people would not hit a whole set of articles at the same time! It would probably fail on the date format as they are rather ambiguous and not one of the formats Wikipedia uses. I would go for a table format or at least bullet to show it is a list. Keith D (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Grimsby
On the Grimsby page (which is protected) please can you add when Western Technology School (also formerly known as Western Comprehensive School) closed. It has taken me a while to find this article to know when my old school closed. http://www.findmyschool.co.uk/schooldetails.aspx?id=18056 Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gennstone (talk • contribs) 15:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK I have added it - though probably the entry should now be removed from the list on the Grimsby page as now closed. Looks like the Ormiston Maritime Academy article should be updated to include details of the federation and subsequent closure of Western Technology School. Then setting up a redirect to allow it as a search term. Keith D (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

RE: Holbeck Hall Hotel
Ok; Thanks Keith Thomas  Rules  17:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

RAF Atherstone
Hello, i'm working on the RAF Atherstone article and it has got rated as a C class because of referencing but i cannot find anymore more references.

Any suggestions of what i could to make it B class?

Gavbadger (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably will have to hunt down some books about the place and see if it can be expanded and referenced from them. Do not know what there is out there but "British built aircraft" by Ron Smith ISBN 0752431625 looks a possibility as indicates "Includes information on Warwickshire airfields and aircraft companies and manufacturers." Keith D (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, i will have a look, the bad thing is have loads of war books but they are all about battles and aeroplanes and only one is about airfields and their defences which is based on case studies. Gavbadger (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Our library has volume 5 covering Northern England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Island for some strange reason, may have a look on Wednesday to see if neighbouring council have the Midlands one on the shelves. Keith D (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the kind offer but i have just bought the book. Gavbadger (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Actinostachys pennula
Now at Actinostachys pennula

Hi Keith

Just thought i would tell as your a adminstrator but a user called Amberina08 has moved their sandbox to Actinostachys pennula and the links are weird.

I didn't know you can move your sandbox to a article. Are you even allowed to?

Gavbadger (talk) 23:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes you can move sandbox to article space - looks like they have move it again to drop the Wikipedia. They have got the cite templates wrong. Keith D (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I tried to fix things but the editor is editing and I keep getting edit conflicts when trying to save any changes to it. Will have to come back later when editor has stopped work. Keith D (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Snap, i had exactly the same problem about five minutes ago and have just asked the editor to stop editing for the next two minutes while i fix the problems. It looks like a three way edit conflict! Sorry Gavbadger (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed the references now, Its helpful when you think there is a edit conflict on a article to copy your changes into notepad in case you lose them all. Anyway I'm off for the night now Gavbadger (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Keith D (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You may want to change the third reference though i had to more or less repeat the same thing three times for ref name, title and publisher Gavbadger (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Any autoconfirmed user may move any page that is neither fully protected nor explicitly move-protected, other than those in MediaWiki:, File: or Category: namespaces, and they may move pages between namespaces except into the same three namespaces. It has been noted elsewhere that the present Special:MovePage interface with its drop-down menu for namespaces is confusing, since several genuine articles have incorrectly been moved to Wikipedia: space.
 * I've fixed ref - it was broken in two ways: (i) there was a misplaced line end which broke the construction of the link within the ref; (ii) the two refs had the same name but were clearly different refs, so I've de-named one of them thus converting the second one into (I also fixed it from  to ).
 * Concerning ref - there are ten instances of this, and all are constructed as  This is overcomplicated, and may be simplified in either (but not both) of two ways: (i) leave the first instance alone, and alter the other nine to ; (ii) remove the enclosing  and change all the into, retaining the same parameters. -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Removal of county cats from UK settlements
Hi Keith,  I've noticed that  user:Jllm06 is removing  100s of county  cats from UK settlements. Is this in accordance with  some policy  that  I'm  not  aware of? (I've been away for a while). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of any change in policy in this area. The ones I have seen are because they are already in a sub-cat of the main county, like removing Category:West Yorkshire if article is in Category:Economy of West Yorkshire. Keith D (talk) 11:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Wording dispute advice/help please? (Fenech-Soler)
Dear Keith, apologies if you are the wrong person to ask but you're one of the few admins I "know". I have a silly dispute going on here where the other user may well be right, but does not seem to want to know about how we do references, and does not engage with my attempts to communicate. (So it's not really a dispute per se, more sort of shadow boxing.) I feel that I am trying in my feeble way to do the right thing but getting nowhere with it, and I'm having a terrible attack of Can't Really Be Bothered (please see username). Is there something else I can try; can you help; shall I just forget it; or what? I'm only really objecting on principle to the other editor's or editors' behaviour - which is literally ignorant but quite possibly not pejoratively so! - obviously I don't really give a monkey's about this chap's surname in the real world and Western civilization will not collapse if I just give up ... please advise ... with thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 10:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have had a look and it appears to be quiet at the moment. I would suggest semi-protection of the article for a short time to get the IP to come to the wicket as it is not always the same IP address. See if they have gone away or will be back later today at their usual editing time. Keith D (talk) 11:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Keith. Thank very much for that. It is indeed quiet at the moment, but I suspect that's only because the non-discussing IP was getting their own way. I've requested semi-protection and we'll see where that goes. It would be nice to get this right but, as noted above, I don't feel that people will die if it isn't! :) Cheers DBaK (talk) 12:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Wellesbourne Mountford Airfield
Hi Keith D

When you have a few minutes spare can you re-assess Wellesbourne Mountford Airfield please. I have had up for assessment on the aviation wikiproject for a while now and it still hasn't been assessed. The article should be a b-class. Thank you Gavbadger (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would think that C-class is about right for the article as it is quite short and some sections are just a single sentences. Some things that could be looked at -


 * 1) Infobox location could do with wikilink and county/country
 * 2) Infobox could do with OS reference
 * 3) In the lead Stratford-on-Avon is mentioned and needs a wikilink. Problem here is are you referring to the district or the place - if the place then it should be Stratford-upon-Avon.
 * 4) Lead mentions RAF Bomber Command but the body does not mention this.
 * 5) Lead contains licensing details which are not in the body of the article.
 * 6) Needs some images.
 * Keith D (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Nuffield tools and gauges
Thanks for your tags on this new article. I created it because it seemed necessary to complete the Morris Motors / Nuffield group article but I am hopelessly handicapped by lack of knowledge about what I guess is called Production Engineering. Anything I wrote would be shot down at once. Do you know of anyone with sufficient knowledge of the subject and if so I could draw their attnetion to it. Thanks if you can help, Eddaido (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I do not know anything of that area. May be you could look at the history of articles on the topic and see who is a regular contributor to them and contact them. Keith D (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Assessment HMS Howe
Hi I'm assessing HMS Howe for B class over at Mil-Hist and apparently the lead section does not need references as the information and references are already in the body

Is this correct?

Gavbadger (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Unsure as to which HMS Howe you are looking at but to answer the question about the lead. WP:LEAD indicates that the lead should not contain material that does not appear in the rest of the article and should generally be referenced there. Ideally the lead should not contain any references unless there is some controversial statements which must be referenced. As the manual says "Some material, including direct quotations and contentious material about living persons must be provided with an inline citation every time it is mentioned, regardless of the level of generality or the location of the statement." Keith D (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The ship is HMS Howe (32) (sorry i forgot about the pennant number) and Thanks. Gavbadger (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I once put NBR 224 and 420 Classes up for WP:DYK, and they wouldn't let it through unless the hook was in the lead and that it was referenced in the lead. That's why there are three refs in the lead of that article, one for each of three phrases in the hook sentence. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Rather strange that some guidlines indicate no references in the lead while another one of our processes is insisting on it. Keith D (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)