User talk:Kudpung/Archive Jan 2010

Important Wine Project discussion needs input!
Hello, the Wine Project is currently in the process of hammering out a proposed policy relating to Notability (wine topics). As Wikipedia and its wine coverage continues to grow, the need for a clear, concise guideline on how Wikipedia's notability policies such as WP:CORP, WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOTE relate to wine articles has emerged. Please review the proposed policy and take part in the talk page discussion Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(wine_topics). All input and view points are welcomed. AgneCheese/Wine 21:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Malvern - GA nomination
Hi Kudpung. Thanks for your kind comments, and greetings also to you for the New Year.

On the WikiProject_Worcestershire, thanks for the invite/suggestion. I find myself needing to try to pull back some of the time and effort I've been putting into Wikipedia, so that I can direct them at other things. If I could afford the luxury, there is quite a bit I could contribute to Wikipedia, but in the end, it doesn't pay the bills.

On the Malvern, Worcestershire article, it's a privilege to be able to contribute, and I'll continue to do so as best I can. The referencing system isn't 'mine' as such. What I did was implement someone's suggestion, do my best to make it work, and show how I got there. However, you'll see from my dialogue that having done this, I have my doubts about the utility of the new referencing layout for this type of article. My own view is that the referencing layout used in Malvern Water article is simpler to implement and more suited to the Malvern, Worcestershire. In other words, it seems more optimal for the Malvern article, whereas the style we're currently trying to implement is more optimal for an article like William Shakespeare

However, it must be said that I was only able to come to that view after implementing the suggested layout. So it was a useful learning exercise, and the ensuing dialogue did get me to better clarify my observations, which itself is always useful (see the sub-heading Inline citations, editing citations, and referencing layouts in the Malvern talk page dialogue). The reason I expressed my doubts early into the new referencing style, was that having realised the issues involved, I had a social responsibility to desribe them as best I could. Thus people could decide which way they'd like to go either early on, or after getting a feel for the issues involved. That is, so people could make informed decisions and indeed perhaps come to a consensus.

You'll see also that I did get concerned that my expression of doubts might cause discouragement and stall the project. For this reason, I continued to implement the new referencing layout to demonstrate good faith, because discouraging others is not my style. So, having expressed my doubts, and clarified them as best I could, it was then a matter of seeing which direction the consensus would take: The Malvern Water style, or the Wakefield style. I still think the Malvern Water style is more optimal, but I see my role as contributing as best I can whichever direction the consensus goes. And part of that contribution is showing others how they can implement the style they indicate a preference for, insofar as I can figure it out.Wotnow (talk) 07:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Wotnow


 * Hi Wotnow. Thanks for your detailed response. I  don't  think  it will  stall  the project at all.  What  we now have to achieve for the article however is consistency -  particularly  if someone comes up  with  the idea in  the future of proposing  it for FA. The Harvard tags are great for book references, but for general  inline references, I  personally  find it is easier to  type them by  hand using  the one-click ref/ref insertion instead of using  a template. All a matter of taste - and habit, I  suppose. I  have added a lot of new refs in  the last  24 hours this way to  satisfy  the reviewer's demands, and it would be great  if you  feel  they  could be improved. It  won't  slow down the review.  Thanks for all  your work on this article; although  Gyro and I are old Malvernians, we certainly  don't  claim  ownership  to  the article, and we all feel privileged to be able to contribute to serious articles for the encyclopedia :)  --Kudpung (talk) 08:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Cheers Kudpung. I rather agree with you on the formatting. If you look at my own earliest contributions, like say John D. Barrow, you'll see they were that style (ref Barrow, J.D. (1990). The World Within the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp.342-343 ref). I 'upgraded' the reference on 18 December 2009, "using Wikibizzo tricks learned since original citation". I've implemented Wikibizzo templates as I got more 'sophisticated'. Sometimes it's useful. But sometimes, perhaps oftentimes, there is little or no extra referencing information imparted thereby. Rather, what one has achieved is enslaveship to Wikibizzos. We can observe this everywhere in life. The anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski had a term which applies to this sort of thing: "the confidence trick of new inventions".Wotnow (talk) 08:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Wotnow


 * I hope I can fix at least some of the additional issues: indeed, one is fixed already. The Malvern Girls College issue relates to another article.  Hanley Castle School is probably a deletion.  I can probably fix the Town Council/UDC issue from VCH [note page was the editor, not the author, so that the words are not his]. Peterkingiron (talk)


 * Don't worry too much about  Peter's comments. Although  partially valid, they  weren't  raised by  the reviewer. Nevertheless, on his advice  I've started reluctantly  hacking stuff out that  we can't get  fixed in time. IMHO the red link to malvern St james should stay -  red links are, according to  policy, a stimulus for someone to  create  the missing article; they  don't  affect  the quality  of the content (unless the article is literally  peppered with them). I'm sure a responsible reviewer understands that this is a serious article that a lot of hard work has been put  into  to  make it  comply with  the rules.If it were an FA nomination, perhaps a tad more strictness would apply. But  personally, I don't  think there is any  reason to  want  to  make Malvern an FA. As a place, it's pretty  unniteresting for the rest  of the world! My  main endeavour now is to  get  the other Malvern related, and Worcestershire articles up  to  scratch. Problem is, I  keep  getting  diverted into  editing and improving articles that  really  have nothing to  do  with  my  own  knowledge base - such  as plain  copyediting etc.--Kudpung (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have reinstated the reference to Monasticon, though imprecisely for the moment, as the text is not in Google Books. Please let me sort out these issues as far as I can.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's OK Peter, I certainly don't intend to  revert  any  of your edits -  if anything, I've been cutting some of my  own  contribs out; I am well  aware that  I  have a tendency  sometimes to  go  OTT with  details ;) In  fact  I  hadn't  realised you  had been busy  making  a lot of improvements as we speak.--Kudpung (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I had been away over Christmas, so that today was the first opportunity to contribute. I have spetn most of this afternoon on it, but will probably not do much more today.  I think we are left with 2 issues that I have raised: Monasticon would require a trip to Birmingham; we need a source for the UDC: that may have to be the record office.  I will reinstate the redlink on Malvern St James shortly.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi KP - can you stop editing for a moment - I'm trying to merge my changes/fixes, but the page is changing faster than I can keep up!


 * Hi Gyro. I've just  deleted a whole bunch of over references on  your advice, but  I  found it  extremely  difficult. For the moment, I really  fail  to  see how that  template system of yours & Wotnow's for making  citations saves any time - if anything  it  appears to  quadruple it. It's now 02.45 am here, and I'm going to  bed before I  get  a divorce suit!--Kudpung (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * All fixed. The ref system is quite simple, once someone actually explains it! I'll add a description to the talk page. I think the big advantage is that it makes the wiki source much more readable - although it does split the refs into two different places - the actual citation in the text, and the full details under references. The citation templates make it easier to give full information, rather than just a link - reviewers are starting to insist on them (see Malvern Water), which I don't think is a bad thing. Anyway, sleep well, and see how it looks in the morning. GyroMagician (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What a splendid effort all round. And ya gotta love those editing conflicts when two editors are trying to save at the same time! I have re-added the Hembry, Cowie & Cowie (HCC) ref for the Malvern Link merge, as it is central to that sentence, as a reader who checks it can readily see. The Hansard ref is useful, and complimentary, so I'd not remove it. I concur that one can overdo the ref clusters, but the occasional complimentary cluster can also add to an article, as I think in this case. Moreover, we can never know who will check it, and find for themselves a whole new information world to check out and contribute back to Wikipedia from. I dunno about you guys, but I've had many such serendipitous finds.


 * I also see GyroMagician that you added the url from the duplicate HCC ref. I realised of course that I was formatting a duplicate ref, but by that time I was a bit jaded, the resolution wasn't readily evident to me so I left it at that, as it wouldn't hurt a GA. But with a fresh perspective I've sorted that. That by the way, is one of the advantages of listing the references in one place. One can far more readily spot duplications and errors, whether or not you're looking for them. Even if you look at the Shakespeare article you'll see that the exercise enabled me to spot an error (McMichael & Glenn - line 199) which I was neither aware of or looking for. I was simply trying an experiment to combine two styles while creating a benefit to the article I was experimenting in.


 * But I of course see Kudpung's point, as I'm sure you do Gyro. That is, there is a trade-off between the gain from ever-more complex uses of Wikibizzos, and losses entailed therein. Our experiment with the Shakespeare-style highlighted that, and I think we've hit on just about as good a compromise as one can get. After all, it will list a reference regardless of whether it is in placed in the body of the article in simple or template format, or grouped in the reference section. So it's as useful as necessary, but robust to different styles.Wotnow (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Wotnow

Reference templates for the Chienlit innovation
The only templates that I am currently aware of are those created by GyroMagician at GyroMagician's neat trick on Malvern Water discussion page, and more recently GyroMagician's 'Howto' on Malvern discussion page, both of which have been copied by me at User:Wotnow. You'll see from my own userpage, and my comments on Malvern Water discussion page and elsewhere, that I credit my awareness of this referencing style to User:Chienlit's implementation in the Vincent Priessnitz article on 15 November 2009, after which I tried it myself. Whether Chienlit picked up elsewhere or worked it out I don't know. I see the earliest contribution from Chienlit using the template was on 17 October 2009, in the Hubert Latham article.

But I see the template was added to the Hubert Latham article by User:Autodidactyl on 14 October 2009. Where that editor got it from I don't know. At this stage, it looks a bit like an innovation that's been quietly evolving behind the scenes. For further description of my own current method of implementing the style, see my additional blurb at Reference templates for the Chienlit innovation, which is the name I've given it for now, pending evidence of the innovation being creditable to someone else.Wotnow (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Wotnow

Some hopefully helpful information
Hi Kudpung. I have added a section to my user page, in which I provide what I hope are Illustrative examples of co-existing referencing styles in the process of editorial problem-solving. I hope it is of some help. As always, it was at least a useful learning exercise for me, as is usually the case when trying to formalise one's own learning into a way that hopefully makes some sense to others. Wotnow (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Wotnow

Origin of List-defined references
Hi Kudpung. You may like to know that having fleshed out the issues as best I could on my user page, I then took the next logical step, of acknowledging Chienlit and awaiting a response regarding any earlier history that I hadn't found. It turns out that Chienlit picked up the idea from User:Maedin, who was also kind enough to provide further information. It transpires that its implementation was advertised on 21 September 2009, in the Wikipedia Signpost. The Signpost links show the innovation traces back to July 2009, when there was extensive discussion and a straw poll, resulting in strong support for the innovation, and subsequent implementation by User:Dragons flight. There is also a Help page explaining List-defined references.

I have of course updated my user page to reflect all this, and to provide all the relevant links to the topic in one place. The exercise leading up to this, by myself and Gyro, also prompted by your own comments which deserved addressing, was far from fruitless. We independently arrived at the same conclusions as those whose efforts led to the implementation, and our elaborations are a good supplement. Of course, some of the reservations that you expressed are to be found in the July discussion. But the overall conclusion was the same that we arrived at. It is optional for indidual editors, and works with other styles, so doesn't interfere anyway. But of course, that is no longer just the conclusion of Gyro and me (I never thought it was anyway, it just seemed we were elaborating the unelaborated). A number of others got there first. Wotnow (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Malvern Girls College: Moving comments
Hi ! It has been suggested that  an article you  have created or edited be moved and renamed. You are invited to join  the debate  and leave your opinion here: Talk:Malvern Girls' College

Geograph images
Please upload images from the Geograph British Isles project directly to Commons. This makes them available to all the WMF projects and allows them to be better organised. You can use this tool to make the transfer very easily. Regards. Adambro (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I know about that  tool, but  it  requires some kind of special  login that  I've never been able to  figure out. --Kudpung (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You need a TUSC account, which you create here and to verify the account you then make the required edit to your user talk page here, which I see you've now done. The other alternative is to use the basic upload form on Commons and replace the contents of the "Summary" text box by the Wiki code available for each image on the Geograph project. You can find the code by clicking "Find out how to reuse this Image" below the image, then scroll down to the "Wikipedia Template for image page" and copy the code in the text box. Adambro (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

TUSC token cda9c0040338fa2c10d3b37010615482
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! Hmmm... we'll see...--Kudpung (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:MStJshield.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:MStJshield.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 07:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Used in User:Kudpung/Malvern St James (draft)] an article in user space being prepared for new main  article page.--Kudpung (talk) 09:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a 7-day grace period to move the image into article space. If it does not make it in time and is deleted, any admin can restore the deleted image for use in article space.  Skier Dude  ( talk ) 03:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Resolved: new article created and moved to  article space.--Kudpung (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

IPA, RP, etc.
Hi. User:Lfh has just altered the IPA pronunciation at Worcester College, Oxford (which I attended) so that the final "r" is pronounced. I ferreted around a bit and found a discussion about the pronunciation of Warwickshire in which you participated, and then your contribution at Talk:Warwickshire. If, as Lfh asserts, WP:IPAEN includes RP (which I speak, with an admixture of colonial and Yorkshire vowels), then the final "r" sound shouldn't have been added. I would have no objection to the addition of an alternative version with final "r" sound - which I can do by re-inserting the previous version, but I'm reluctant to do that just now without a second opinion by someone who clearly knows more about this stuff than I do - i.e. you.

In fact, what I know about phonetics could be written on the back of a postage stamp, and I've had a run-in about this stuff with Lfh or some other unintelligible expert in relation to a similar situation on some other article, probably about opera, whose title I forget, where I just gave up. All help gratefully received! Best wishes. --GuillaumeTell 17:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Guillaume, I have already  had a run in with  Lfh over this, but  he/she remains intransigent. See User talk:Lfh. As a professional  linguist, lexicographer, (and RP Brit from  Worcester to  boot), I am  sure that  he/she has clearly  missed the point, and  misunderstood the function of the IPA. American is rhotic, British is not (except  for some isolated minority a reas), and even the Americans do  not  pronouce final 'r's where there aren't  any - or do  they  say Arizoner,  Dakoter, Iower, Louisianner,  Nevader, or Oklahomer? I think not,  and I  would not  add an IPA 'r' to  the phonetic transliteration  and insist they  do!  I strongly  discourage non  nationals from  being prescriptive over the way the natives pronounce their place names. and languages. There is also  no such thing  as a Standard International English pronunciation, and whatever Lfd contends,  it  is not  the place in  Wikipedia for a consensus of few to  redefine the  established practices for  the use of  the IPA for many. However, as you  will  see HERE, I  would be reluctant  to get  involved in  an  edit  war over it after already  having  reverted (I think) one of his perceived 'r's, but  together, and maybe with  the help  of User:Boynamedsue who  has a similar problem with Lfh's ideas, we may  be able to  exert some gentle persuasion  before escalating to  RfA..--Kudpung (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello again. I see that an anon IP has reverted the Worc Coll pronunciation that I mentioned above, so I'm going to let sleeping dogs lie (unless it is unreverted, of course) for now.  But are you sure that Lfh is in fact American?  His/her talk page has comments about Milton Keynes, MK Dons FC, Dr John Reid, Muralitharan, Rugby Union, London boroughs, Welsh musicians ....  How many Americans have even heard of any of those? Best. --GuillaumeTell 21:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought I  read something  of his where he said he was from  the US, but  I  may  be wrong. No  matter, he appears to  be advocating  an Americanisation  of British  English. Not really  the kind  of editor I  want  to ruffle the feathers of, and I  wouldn't bother if I wasn't  a professional  linguist and lexicographer  :) --Kudpung (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been enjoying the discussion at the IPA Talk Page, what I can understand of it, but there isn't anything useful that I could say that hasn't been said already. I was surprised to discover that Worcester, Massachusetts isn't pronounced Warsestuhr, and that no-one has got round to telling us how to pronounce Worcester, Western Cape.


 * On the subject of RP, I was walking home from my work at Leeds University some years ago and was accosted by an oriental chap who showed me a piece of paper with an address on it and asked me, in halting English, how to get there. I pointed him in the right direction, and his face lit up:  "Ah!  You speak Standard English!", he said, having, I assumed, been baffled by Leeds accents.


 * I was in Malvern recently, doing the Elgar trail with musical friends. My only previous visit there, years ago, was to Le Croque-en-Bouche (with the same friends, one of whom lives in Bretforton), where we encountered the rudest restaurateur that I've ever met.  Nice food and good wines, though. --GuillaumeTell 18:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the IPA debate has turned to become the usual cyclic pattern of people repeating themselves and everyone else. I've tried to  wrap  it up with  a kind of bulleted conclusion, but  I'm not  holding my  breath. The main  thing  however, is that probably  after this discussion, nobody is going to  risk an edit war (3 reverts and all  that  stuff), so  we can probably safely  change the IPA renderings  to reflect  the  way  that  the majority  of people pronounce the place names (the majority  not necessarily  being the local residents). Maybe someone will pick up on my suggestion  for showing  both  AE and BE pronunciations where they  might  be significantly different. Again, this can  be done boldly without need for a great  debate. Unfortunately, I'm very  committed to the Worcestershire, the wine, and the school articles, and I  wouldn't have time to  scour  the encyclopedia and do it myself. I  might  do  it  on the fly  though. BTW:thanks for your tweak  to Bretforton. I'm  glad you  like Elgar, have you  seen my  new article about Julius Harrison? Nowadays there aren't  any  particularly  special restaurants in the county; for many  years my  favourite French restaurant in the whole world has been the Côte d'Azur in  Vientiane, Laos,  close on the heels of the Entroe des Artistes in Avignon. Naturally  they  both  serve my  favourite reds: Cairanne, Gigondas, and Vacqueyras, top crus from  the Rhône, and Calvados (spirit) from Mayenne where I spent much of my youth. --Kudpung (talk) 05:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, I've recently had an anon editor try to alter the pronunciation of Wootton Wawen, he was correct with the pronounciation of wootton but wished Wawen, prounounced by locals woe'n, to Waiven. I have re-corrected the edit to reflect the local pronounciation, amd as my phonetic knowledge is nil that probably all I can do. I can't understand why people would qustion a local pronunciation even if phonetically incorrect? Argrogan (talk) 11:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Argrogan, there's some rather more intelligent talk  going  on  in the sidelines, particularly  among  the' Worcs crowd (See: User_talk:GyroMagician) because we were affected too, and many  of us are members of neighbouring  county  projects. I know your village, and I  know how it's pronounced. The local  pronunciation  is pretty much  how any one would utter it from  its Latin spelling so  you  are perfectly  entitled to  revert  what someone else is doing. Articles about  places are a dodgy topic though,  because nobody  really has an academic level of local knowledge, and that leaves the pages open  to interference from anyone anywhere. We  once had a very  obnoxious American try  to  give us a lecture about  Malvern water, and the Royal Family, and then put  all sorts of POV, COI, and other banners all  over the page after we had very  tactfully  proven he was wrong. As far as the IPA is concerned,I suggest you just  write  the IPA  the way Wawen  is pronounced your/our way, and it  will be right  for all the Waweners, the rest  of us from  the Midlands, and for my  students in Bangkok, Delhi, Hong Kong, and Singapore. --Kudpung (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC) BTW: Your article is coming  along very  nicely indeed. The very  long  paragraph  in the history  section  needs splitting  up and more references.--Kudpung (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Kudpung, thanks for the support in this I am rather new to Wikipedia and so I am opften reluctant to be as bold over these matters as perhaps I should be. On the history section, yes your right it does need to be edited and shortened and referenced a bit more, I thought I had a summarised version in another source but I can't put my hand to it at the moment. As for Col Throckmorton in the Sambourne article he is mentioned particularly as they are the Lords of the Manor that Sambourne is in and so, at the time of WW1, the first family of the district. Thanks for your advice on these matters it is greatly appreciated, I like to see feedback on my contributions to see if I'm goiing in the right direction. Sambourne was the first article I created and tried to follow the guidelines for settlements in its preparation. Regards Argrogan (talk) 10:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

meetup
I missed you last time your were in England. It would be good to try again next time. I suggest you contact me by e-mail at (deleted at request  of poster)  I suggest you remove this addresswhen you have noted it.


 * I'll be back in Malvern again  in  April. I shall  be staying  about  four weeks.--Kudpung (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Pleased to hear that you will be back in Malvern in April so if you are able to meet up with others I would welcome learning of any meeting. --DonBarton (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds good Don. I'll keep you  informed.

Malvern GA nom
I do not think there is now much that can easily be done with the references. I have eliminated a couple more incongruities in them, but I think this is the time to seek the final (?) review. Last time I was involved in edits to GA status, once another editor and I between us had found all missing citations, it went through, without anything being converted to citation templates. This article has them in such quantity as to make the text almost unreadable in editing (until they were taken out and placed in a spearate section). Peterkingiron (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

AND CONGRATULATIONS TO YOU
And a badge for you, with congratulations for kick-starting the process in the first place. Or was it a crank-start? :-) And for leaping into the driving seat at key moments, and holding onto the rails when others of us careened in various directions. Regards. Wotnow (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks :) I've removed the badge to my  user page, because from  there it triggers some automatic stats for the Wikipedia software. Please do  the same for yours.--Kudpung (talk) 03:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation of places
Hi Kudpung, thank you for that notice I have left a comment. Likelife (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Likewise, I have made a hopefully helpful observation. Wotnow (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Watchlist
Hi, just noticed that in your newsletter the link to the watchlist, under New Aims, is pointing to the Yorkshire watchlist rather than a Worcestershire one. I do not mind you monitoring the Yorkshire articles, the more the merrier, but it leaves the Worcestershire ones a bit vulnerable! Keith D (talk) 11:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that  out. It  is because I  cribbed the layout from Yorks! I really  ought  to  find out  how to  make a termplate for the newsletter so  that  one fix does all.--Kudpung (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Keith D (talk) 12:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Just thought that I can set up and run one for Worcestershire at the same time as I run the ones for Lincolnshire, Warwickshire and Yorkshire. If you are interested let me know. Keith D (talk) 14:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

News
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 2px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #FF66FF; border: 2px #98FB98 solid; -moz-border-radius:20px;text-align: center;" |The WORCESTERSHIRE Project Newsletter - January 2010 {| style="width: 100%; border: 1px gray solid; background-color:#98FB98;"
 * style="border: solid 1px grey;"|
 * style="border: solid 1px grey;"|
 * valign="middle" style="width: 50%; border: 0px; background-color:#7CFC00; padding: 1em" |

The WikiProject WORCESTERSHIRE Newsletter No. 1 - January 2010

(Archived here.)
 * valign="middle" align="right" style="width: 45%; border: 0px; background-color:#7CFC00; padding: 1em;" |


 * valign="top" style="border: 2px #007FFF solid; padding: 1em; width: 45%; background-color:#CCCCFF;" |
 * valign="top" style="border: 2px #007FFF solid; padding: 1em; width: 45%; background-color:#CCCCFF;" |

Welcome to the first WikiProject Worcestershire newsletter
If you are not  yet a member of the The Worcestershire project, you  are probably receiving  this because you  have significantly  contributed to  one of our pages. Now is the time to consider joining - it  might help you get some assistance on a page you feel particularly attached to it. Someone once asked on the project page if they  could get  a newsletter. The Worcestershire project only has a few members and they  most  probably  have the project  pages and major articles on  their watchlists, but  here goes anyway...

This year has got off to  great start  with  the promotion  of Malvern, Worcestershire to Good Article status. The GA review process was particularly strict and demanding, and a good thing too, because it sets a benchmark for the quality to be targeted for other articles in  the project, even if we do  not  intend to  reach  GA with  them. Furthermore, and probably most important, this particular review clearly demonstrated what can be achieved with teamwork, and it puts the page on a par with  biggies such as Manchester,  one of the Wikipedia's flagship English settlement articles. Anyone can go ahead and create an article, and some articles have a major contributor, but it would have been impossible for Malvern to have been promoted without the extraordinary collaborative effort of a dedicated few, spread across three continents in very different time zones, and sometimes tripping over each other at all times of the day and night  to  get  the article up  to  snuff.
 * Great news for 2010!

Since the Worcs project was founded   barely  seven months ago on  8 June last  year, in  addition  to  the creation and maintenance of  the project  pages themselves. a lot of work has already been done by  the Worcs project  members, including the creation  of stubs for most of the missing  settlements  in  the county, creation and improvement  work on  Malvern Water, creation  and expansion  of articles on important  schools and one or two biographies in  the county, and general repetitive tasks such as keeping spam and vandalism  at  bay.
 * Recently founded

All the members of the project have their own specialised fields of interest of course, such  as French wine, schools, Lancashire, the Malverns, cricket, Magnetic Resonance Imaging,  busses, castles,  waterways, or Spike Milligan. However, they all have a common denominator somewhere that  brings them together in  Worcestershire. The Worcestershire project mainly concerns settlements. Perhaps after the success of Malvern, the immediate priority now is to  improve the articles that  really  ought  to  be the flagships of the project, namely  Worcester, and Worcestershire. These two are, sadly, some of the articles in the worst state. They have been created long ago and expanded over time by  a great many  shingle-edit authors and IPs.
 * Experts!

A possible suggestion would be to take one of those rather shoddy  pages, probably  Worcester, the county  seat, or the project's eponymous article Worcestershire and do  a Malvern job  on it. Such a concerted piece of teamwork  might  even earn the project  another major GA - and we now know it  can be done!
 * So wotnow? (pun)

Meet up
An attempt at a meet up failed last year - mainly  either because some of the most active members of the project  live in  other countries, or the timing  wasn't  quite right. We can have another attempt in  April, when Kudpung  will  be back in  Malvern for his dad's 90th birthday, and hopefully  this will coincide with  a home trip  to the UK for GyroMagician.

Talk
The place to make your suggestions and dicscuss it all is  HERE - be sure to have the page on  your watchlist!

'''Would you like to join the WP:WORCS?? Please enter yourself at WP:WORCS! - new editors are always welcome!'''

Happy Wikying, all the best  for 2010, and special thanks again all round for the efforts of  the Malvern taskforce, and to everyone else who  has contributed to our articles. Currently there are two featured articles in Worcestershire.
 * valign="top" style="border: 2px #007FFF solid; padding: 1em; width: 50%; background-color:#CCCCFF;" |

Priority Articles
The top priority articles have been identified as probably being:

The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, so we can concentrate our efforts on these first. Priorities are not set in stone and if you would like to discuss changes, please join in at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Worcestershire.
 * Worcester • Worcestershire • Bromsgrove • Redditch • Kidderminster • Pershore • Malvern College • Malvern St James • Droitwich • tenbury Wells and the suite of former QinetiQ establlishments: * TRE • RSRE • DERA

Other priorities: These lists will help:
 * The recommended priority by kind is for creation/improvement of complete articles is:
 * 1) Places in the county
 * 2) Schools in the county (Particularly susceptible to  vandalism - please keep  them  on  your watch lists if possible).
 * 3) Transport in the county
 * 4) Notable buildings/objects/geo features/AONB/Heritage sites, etc. in the county
 * 5) History in the county
 * 6) Industry & Commerce in the county.
 * 7) People in the county - NOTE: These all need the Worcs project  banner adding  to their talk pages, and assessing.
 * 8) County related articles about things not actually in the county, and/or other related projects.
 * All Worcs related articles by ABC
 * Worcs related articles by type.
 * All Worcs related articles about people by ABC
 * List of all Schools in  Worcestershire
 * List by Class & Importance: Page 1 All categories except people (not yet  tagged with  WP banner)
 * List by Class & Importance: Page 2 All categories except people (not yet  tagged with  WP banner).

New Aims
Specific aims for the project are:-

The watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible. Some of our articles need their infoboxes completing.
 * Monitor
 * Infoboxes

Please remember that the list of stubs needing expansion is always in need of attention. Please take a look and see if you can help. One small edit, such as adding a reference section and reference, to an article each session would make a big difference. If you   re uploadiing  an image, be sure  it has a correct FUR, and that  you  have preferably  already  created a link  on  the page where you  want  it to  be.
 * References

Please be careful when performing articles moves and check if anyone seems to be in the middle of doing the same thing. If he, she, or they are, stop and have a chat about it. Otherwise you may  be unintentionally duplicating or reverting each  other's work. This is particularly important  if an article is currently under a  GA review. Images may be deleted if they have an incorrect FUR.
 * Moves, merges, and multiple edits

Guidelines

 * How to write about settlements
 * How to write about counties
 * How to write about rivers
 * How to write about people

Imprint Written by User:Kudpung, WP:WORCS Based on an original layout & content by WP:YORKS '''


 * }
 * }

Possibly unfree File:WorcsCoatArms.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:WorcsCoatArms.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --J Milburn (talk) 12:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. I think you'll find that the image is cleanly within the PD realm. You were quite right in that it should not be deleted. — BQZip01 —  talk 21:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

the big r question (IPA, RP, etc.)
Well that was certainly something! Not entirely conclusive, but at least it cleared up our positions. If nothing else, you now think that WP is attempting something it shouldn't (pan-dialectalism), rather than the greater evil of forcing Britons to speak like Americans!

I see you're a professional translator. A subject I had quite a fascination with when I was at university. Are you involved with Translation (list)? I used to be, and may go back to that in the near future. Lfh (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was quite hairy. Ugh! - diaphonemic (pan)-dialectalism - Oh my  teapot! The Amis drive on the right, the Brits drive on  the left. Let's all drive down the middle to  be on the safe side! I keep the debate  on  my  watchlist  but  I  won't  be going  back  there, because they got  hacked off at my  pointing out  of the flaws in  their arguments,  and my clear demonstrations that  they  weren't being  very helpful  by  turning the talk  into  a discussion about unrelated things (or put  more bluntly: clouding  the issue because thy  couldn't or wouldn't look at  the problem in perspective). Funny thing  is, I  actually  checked out all the Wiki  pages on  the IPA, their talk  pages, and the talk  pages of all  the contributors to the IPA articles, and I  find that:


 * IPA page(s): Although a truly immense amount of work  has been put into  it/them, it/they go(es) far, far beyond the mission  of an  encyclopedia, try(ies) to  be an all-authoritive work and the ultimate handbook on  the subject,  and has/have become a platform for everyone who  knows a bit  about  the IPA to  write a bit  (or a lot!) about it. I  think  the Encyclopedia Britannica sums up  the IPA best -  in just  four  paragraphs - which  shows at least  that  the Birtannica hasn't  forgotten what an encyclopedia should be, and that  it most  probably  does not practise the Wiki system of consensus by the few, to  be imposed upon the many (bit like a Thai style military dictatorship really).
 * Most of the contributors to the Wiki IPA know the IPA (and linguistics as an academic subject)  exceptionally  well,  but  they  have probably  never been outside their native America, or used the IPA for any  other purpose than  just  talking about it. The discussion would have taken  a more focussed  direction if some of them  had actually lived in non-English  speaking countries, and/or taught English (or any  other foreign  language) in  them - or in  other words,  used the IPA in real real- life situations. And of course, if they  had properly  read what  people were saying  from  the beginning  and not  lost  the plot (your original  dilemma).
 * Most of their talk pages and the associated IPA talk  pages are one of the biggest  collections of slanging  matches and anal  academicism I've ever come across in Wikiland. Kwami, who appears to be actually  quite an intelligent  IPA specialist,linguist,  long-time contributor to  the Wiki and an admin:"The weird thing is that in RP it really is /ˈwʊstər/, with a real /r/. You hear that if you put 'is' after it. Well, in real RP, anyway. Maybe not in local Worcester dialect. So we might could say 'locally /wʊstə/', but not 'rp: /wʊstə/"He is wonderfully wrong of course, it  is exactly  the opposite of what  he is saying -  and what  the heck is real  RP? I come from just six miles outside Worcester. Malvern is  one of the towns in  the the UK with  the most  marked use of RP, almost  to  the extent of it  being its local  accent, and an awfully rather posher one than the 'southern' or Home Counties RP that some liguists mistakenly  claim to  be 'standard' British English. "It is the business of educated people to speak so that no-one may be able to tell in what county their childhood was passed." (A. Burrell (1891):A Handbook for Teachers in Public Elementary Schools) . Malvern is a Mecca of the most elite of British boarding  schools; it  is a place a where daily clothing is by default, Burberry,  green welly  boots or  Veldtshoen, and thick wooly  stockings. People carry  hockey sticks, lacross sticks, or shooting sticks everywhere, and drive their kids to  school  and go  to  Waitrose  in  Landrovers with  permanently attached empty horseboxes (I often feel  that  Malvern and its mansions, manors, and manners should have been the model  for Midsomer Murders).  You  go  into  a pub's lounge bar and nearly everyone standing at the counter is a 'Sir' somebody  or other with  an accent  to  match, but  wearing  worn out tweeds and looking  as if they've just  come in  from  planting potatoes. Neither of the 'r' s in  Worcester are pronounced by  the educated majority. However, if like  some of the few, you  use the other bar in  the pub, or go  to  work  wearing  a pitchfork, you  most  probably  will  roll them all. And roll around in draught  cider (with  a rhotic final  'r') too! On  British  accents, probably  the best  authority is  Peter Trudgill with  whom I've had the greatest  honour of working  in  the past, but  no one seems to mention  him.According  to  his user page, which  again  is 99% all  about  languages and nothing  about himself, Kwami  has never even been to the UK. Strange page for an  admin. I  once nearly put up  for adminship, but because my  edit count is low due to my  lack of (pa)trolling, I  would probably  be wasting  my  time. Anyway, those admin interviews are worse than a British  army  promotion  board,  so I  just  plod along and enjoy very  good relations with  the members of the Wikipedia project  I  founded. Translation? Well, it's one of the many  hats I  wear, but like I  mentioned in  that  discussion, 'professional' is the operative word, and when I  get  home from work, unlike most  academics, I try  to  switch  off from  llinguistics :) I  might  have a go  and translate something  from French or German into  English  for the Wikipedia occasionally, but  it has to  be for articles that  I  feel  are already 100% correct in themselves, and whose subject  matter interests me personally,  such  as Rhône valley wines, the settlements around my  French home,  or the places I  lived in  during my 18 years in  Germany. --Kudpung (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Kudpung (et al). Thanks for the link to the update on the big r question. One might think there'd been an invasion of pirates, going about the place with their "aarrrrrrs". On the Wikipedia talk:IPA for English page, I didn't hold much hope for a logically reasoned outcome when the response to my own comment appeared to miss the point entirely, while at the same ascribing to me points I'd not even made. Not being an expert in the subject of linguistics, or dialects in general, I'd have to climb a learning curve to contribute to the technical discussion. While I remain capable of that sort of thing (as I think most people are), the cost of such energy-intensive exercises is often not justified. But I could make observations at the coneptual level, which you grasped of course, emic and etic being something you're bound to be grounded in. And I daresay you know some of Geertz's work (some of it was on Thailand as I recall), and of course this C. F. Voegelin and Ward H. Goodenough (I have a photocopy of part or all of that text somewhere, from a second year Social Anthropology subject). I would have been a bit surprised if there had been a satisfactory conclusion. At least I now know from whence come those symbols in brackets after the title of some articles. Frankly, as a not uneducated reader, I have often found them to be less than helpful. Take the Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi article. I've known of this fellow's works for years, having reviewed his earlier works and works on his works. In those days, I made my own assumptions about how to pronounce his name. At one point in my Wikipedia surfing, I checked out the article, looking for something that would make sense to me. What I saw was not that helpful. Then I put my own pronounciation to someone, who had a very similar name, and who replied that it sounded about right. So, I amended the article to have an easy to understand pronounciation. The sort of thing a lay reader will appreciate. And I may be wrong, but my assumption was that Wikipedia had more lay readers than experts in any given field. My contribution was then amended, but in a very helpful fashion, that again made sense to me as a lay reader. And to me this points to two primary and related yardsticks to aim for: First, what is X for? X in this case being an article, is it to inform? Next of cours, who is it to inform - who is the audience? And how does it present to that audience? (A theme not dissimilar from my approach to the referencing templates question on my user page). Thanks too Kudpung for the Worcestershire newsletter, and the pun. Much appreciated. <P<By the way, I had a bit of a look via Google for some clues to that book on English dialects which I could only remember the colour of (very handy). A bit hopeless of course, barring serendipity, or hitting on an effective heuristic. The book would have been early 1970s, and this is reminiscent of the cover, execept that the book was written in English for an English readership, not an Arabic one (it's possible the cover is a copy, that does happen across cultures). But those are the only clues I currently have for that distant memory. Wotnow (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

And then there's Sandra Boynton's linguistic solution to international chocolate foraging, which does it for me! Wotnow (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

What was that English dialects book?
On the offchance, I just did a quick search of Google books using "English Accents OR Dialects", and limiting the publication date to between 1965 and 1980. I then clicked through the pages until I hit this page, which contains the title Discovering English dialects. No colour/cover cues, but the title looked vaguely familiar, and the publication date is around the era that I had a series of intermittent dialogues with the Englishman who showed it to me. The next link showed a familiar-looking thumbnail cover photo. So I clicked that link, which took me here, to a familiar-looking cover, title, and author name for a 2008 reprint of a 1978 publication. I don't know at this stage if the cover is that of the original 1978 publication, but it sure does look familiar, including the author name. Wotnow (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I see Peter Trudgill is credited as one of the contributors -  that  is important.--Kudpung (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Oundle
Reply.

The fact this page has a very informal tone to it.
You may ask why point this out. But it is very important that we keep Written and Oral English separate. Please keep that in mind whenever you are editing. Pandaaj, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandaaj (talk • contribs) 17:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * HI Pandaaj; this is a user talk  page. we can  say  what  we like here as long  as we remain  civil,  and discuss Wikipedia business. However, I  urge you to review the many  deletions several editors have made to  you  recent  contributions today, and also to take a look  at  what  you  write in  your own user space at  User:Pandaaj/Chobes, and to  read the offer of help  I  posted on  your talk  page,  and please remember to  sign  your messages.--Kudpung (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Mister 'Kudpung', How 'wonderful' ‎that we can 'talk' here. I never need to make a conscious decision to remain civil as I am always civil. Always. I find your comments unsavoury and hurtful, I merely try to expand the content of wikipedia with first hand knowledge of these articles I have edited. Watchfully yours - P. Man


 * Pandaaj, I really  have no idea what you are talking  about. Please take a look  at  your  talk  page at  User talk:Pandaaj. If  you  need any  advice  for  your editiing, we will  all  be pleased to help. Please remember to  sign  your messages. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mister 'Kudpung'. I am just agreeing to the fact that I am able to remain civil on my user page as well as informal. Perhaps straying from the topic that we are talking about at the moment, do you know more about Horsham than I do? My colleague does. I understand that your interests are great Malvern, which as you say 'outdated'. To be frank, I love worcestershire. Therefore I shall fight for the cause of Worcestershire, of wherein I live, and if necessary die for it! With kind regards and always Watchfully yours P - Man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandaaj (talk • contribs) 19:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

GA review and lessons thereof
Hi Kudpung. Thanks for your observation and comment. I arrived at a similar observation via the process of logic that underpinned our dialogues. It's promising to see that Wikipedia guidelines and policies do not fall entirely prey to illogical processes and conclusions, whether by conscious deliberation, or default. Likely a combination of both. I.e. sometimes illogic is avoided not so much consciously, as by not going in directions that take one there. Nevertheless, I do see some good reasoning in several guidelines, so we know there is conscious deliberation combining both reasonableness and logic. You may find my subsequent comment of interest, not least for educational reasons. Regards Wotnow (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Redirected AFD
That's kind of what I figured - thanks! UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 16:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Milford Haven
My recent revert of your edit to the Milford Haven page was triggered by the fact that you failed to inform that you intended to transfer a section of the text from the article to the talk page. Your comment was simply 'Condensed'. That is all I saw and I reacted to it. It would have been more apparent to your intentions if you had stated in your edit that you had moved it to the talk page, or stated 'please see talk page'. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm fairly sure I have never refered to the article in question as 'mine'. My history before the attempt at GA status is minimal, vandalism reverts if anything. My style of editing is to repair and expand, I very rarely delete unless it is obvious opinion or nonsense. If our styles clash I'm sorry, but I was only editing to several points being made by Silktalk, thus the railways section was in reference to a the validity of the GWR poster and the history to his desire to split the section in to a new article. There is no desire to 'own', just to challenge the removal of information that others may find valid. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It was my  fault, as you  said, for not putting  'See talk' on the edit summary, something which I usually  always do  when it's appropriate. I  worked by  the book  with  that removal  though,  and it's sometimes quicker to  WP:BOLD than have a long  drawn  out discussion  about  a minor issue, especially when working  against  the clock as in  the case of a GA review.   I know I  came into to  Milford Haven without  knocking the door, but  we never do, do we?  One sees a job  needing doing, and one just  digs in.  You weren't  claiming ownership per se, but there has been a slight general auora of maternal  protectiveness about  the article, and I  could never understand why  my initial offer to  review it  was rejected - long  before SilkTork  turned up. But  I'm not  after badges for GA work, I've been around the 'pedia too long for that  kind of stuff; at  the end of the day, I  just  like to see accuracy  and quality, and working  on  articles about  British places is one of the areas where I think I  can  be of greatest  help  to the community. You'll see that  I've continued to make some minor, but  important  improvements. Let's not  imagine for a moment  that it's a reviewer's job to  knock an article into  shape, they  help  out with  some obvious things that  they can fix quickly, but  the rest is up to the authors.See: Talk:Milford Haven/GA1 (copyediting). --Kudpung (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Milford Haven - BBC refs
Hi Kudpung, I wasn't "blaming you" for the shortcomings of the etymology section or anything; I'm lucky to have a good source on Welsh placenames, and I'm just trying to help. I probably should have had a look at that section weeks ago, but there you go. I'm sure everyone editing this article at the moment, yourself included, is doing so in good faith. Best wishes, --Pondle (talk) 10:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the problem is, that  nobody has been systematically  following  the comments on  the talk  page. They  appear to have been relynig  solely  on the edit summaries,  The main  author and GA nominator hasn't visited the pâge for a week,   I was already  blamed for tidying  some non-focussed stuff which  i  did 'by  the book, so instead of editing  I, I  put  the details and the sources on the talk  page for somebody  else to  do. I then got  told I  was interfering  with the GA process, and that That  section  was ruled out, folded up, and put away, without  the action. With a little more collaboration (or should I  say  co-operation) things could happen  a lot smoother. It's sad that  all  the hours I  spent on that  article doing the dirty work  with the references  that  were in  really  poor shape  was not  appreciated. Anyway, good luck  with  the GA. There is no  reason  to  think  that  it  won't  pass. It  just  needs focussing now, and some of the trivia cutting  out.--Kudpung (talk) 10:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your work was appreciated Kudpung - you did a vital job sorting out the refs, trimming editorial interpretation, adding the compass etc. etc. I just think there's often scope for misinterpretation and miscommunication on Wikipedia, and perhaps that was the case with other editors on this article. I have to confess I've only dipped in and out of the GA review discussions myself.--Pondle (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)