User talk:Mark999/2007

WikiProject Bristol
 Hello, this is an invitation to join WikiProject Bristol.

You may be interested in joining WikiProject Bristol. This WikiProject aims to improve the standard of all articles relating to Bristol, which includes all subdivisions of the city, major buildings, roads and other related articles.

You can help by:
 * Creating new articles.
 * Expanding stubs.
 * Adding photographs.
 * Referencing articles.
 * Research topics.
 * Anything else really...

For more information, see the project page, and if you have any questions you can leave them at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bristol and someone will get back to you. — Addbot (talk) 02:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC) 
 * &mdash; Gasheadsteve 06:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Rail services in Bristol
I have added a "" template to the article Rail services in Bristol, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Bencherlite 20:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages
Thanks for your help adding the template to the talk pages of Bristol-related articles. Just one minor point though, I noticed that some of the talk pages you created were for articles that don't exist yet. You should only create talk pages for articles that have already been created. Thanks again for all your help with this task. Gasheadsteve 21:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I would not unnecessarily agree with this last point. What Mark999 has done, has also been done elsewhere for other UK transport-related articles such as railway stations and railway lines, where they have been added to a preexisting template.Pyrotec 23:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Bristol
An idea for something you can do: have a look at Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Bristol and then go to Flickr advanced search and look for suitable pictures that can be included in these articles. Make sure that you tick the only search Creative Commons photos box so that it only finds photos that we can use. You'll still need to double check the licence though because we can't use some Creative Commons licenses. The ones that we can use are Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike. Gasheadsteve 21:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately the picture of Redcliffe Wharf isn't any good to us because it's a non-commercial licence, which we're not allowed to use. The licence information on the picture is at the bottom of the right-hand column on the photo page, just under where it says Additional Information, where it says Some rights reserved. Gasheadsteve 21:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Tagging things with Bristol & other resources
I see you've been tagging lots of pages with the Bristol box but can I suggest we are a limited number of editors with limited time & not to tag too many - for example the M48 motorway is quite a long way from Bristol. You might like to revisit some of the articles you started with a single line of text & expand - perhaps by looking at their ward profiles at Ward finder, images at geograph or listed buildings at Images of England.&mdash; Rod talk 14:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Damien Hirst
I'm surprised you marked the article as "start" class. I would have thought it was B and heading for GA. Start is "weak in many areas, and may lack a key element". Could you please specify on the article talk page the many areas where you consider it to be weak. Thanks. Tyrenius 01:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Pictures in Bristol
Hi - I thought you might be interested to know I've moved the picture of the suspension bridge back to the top of the Bristol article. I've explained why I put it there on Talk:Bristol. If you want to move it again, would you mind leaving a note there so we can reach a consensus? Cheers MrBeast 21:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Bristol bus route 1
Hi Mark, I just tagged this for speedy deletion as the article is currently contentless and I'm assuming it's creation was an accident. Sorry if this is not the case - Peripitus (Talk) 12:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Editing etiquette
Hi Mark, could you use the preview button a bit more to cut down on pages in the history, and use the edit summary box? Also, you may be interested in the manual of style. Joe D (t) 19:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Avon / Greater Bristol
I've removed your last edit - "Today the former avon [sic] area is more widely known as Greater Bristol." - mainly because, in my experience working in government in the area, it's an oversimplification to put it mildly. Local people (and councillors etc) in Bath and Weston-super-Mare (and even Thornbury, Portishead and Kingswood) are very touchy about not being seen as part of Bristol, even "Greater Bristol". Essentially that is why more and more of the local and central government documents you see, when they don't refer to Avon or "former Avon", refer to this thing called "West of England" - a stupid name for the area in my view but the least bad that anyone's come up with (apart from "CUBA" which was a joke started in the Avon county planning department by a graphic designer called Chris Bahn, by the way - not me but I was in the room at the time !). I accept that in terms of functional geography, and to people outside the area, "Greater Bristol" makes a lot of sense (esp if you're a Bristolian), but it's not seen as a neutral "non-POV" phrase. Ghmyrtle 11:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Cherry Gardens
A tag has been placed on Cherry Gardens, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Does not assert importance of subject

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Mr Stephen 15:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Elmlea Infant School
I have added a "" template to the article Elmlea Infant School, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Mr Stephen 15:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Elmlea Infant School
I've nominated Elmlea Infant School, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Elmlea Infant School satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Elmlea Infant School and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Elmlea Infant School during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Mr Stephen 13:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Cherry Gardens
I've nominated Cherry Gardens, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Cherry Gardens satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Cherry Gardens and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Cherry Gardens during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. (signed belatedly: Mr Stephen)

South Gloucestershire
wouldn't this fall into Greater Bristol? I suppose ther is a bit of overlap. Simply south 00:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See my earlier comments re Avon / Greater Bristol - many residents of S Glos do not accept (rightly or wrongly) that they live in an area which could be described as "Greater Bristol". This is a locally sensitive issue.  Ghmyrtle 09:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Referencing
well, it is good to see articles being referenced. However, in order to see what the references are, please add ==References== just above the external links section. Then add to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Tiptoety 03:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hi, it would really be helpful if you were to fill in the edit summary box each time you make an edit, as it enables other editors to judge whether they need to look at an edit or not. It is considered bad form not to do this! Also, some of your changes (e.g. re-ordering a railway station's list of services) should be classed as "minor edits" (by clicking the box above the "save page" button). Have a look at my contributions to see the sort of thing I'm talking about. Thanks, --RFBailey 14:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox UK station
Please see my note at Template talk:Infobox UK station. --Stewart (talk)  15:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Previous/next station boxes on station articles
Hi, please have a look at the discussion at WT:RAIL about these. In particular, there's a general agreement that these should be used to show the next station along the line in each direction, rather than every calling pattern. This is so that these boxes don't grow too large and are kept under control. Thus, for example, at Liverpool Lime Street it's not necessary to list both Mossley Hill and Liverpool South Parkway as "next" stations for London Midland: Mossley Hill is the next station, so only that one is required. Similarly, at Birmingham New Street it's sufficient just to say that Water Orton is the next station on the line to Leicester, even if most trains go straight to Coleshill Parkway. Thanks, --RFBailey (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, having two "next" stations instead of one may not "make the box any bigger", but it still adds unnecessary clutter. But having separate row of the template for "London-Birmingham and "London-Wolverhampton" is completely unnecessary, and definitely does increase the size of the boxes.


 * Also, please sign your posts on talk pages properly, using four tildes ( ~ ), or by pressing the "signature" button, so that we can tell who left a message, as well as when! --RFBailey (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)