Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 3

Ipswich
Ipswich, Suffolk should be moved to Ipswich, and Ipswich moved to Ipswich (disambiguation). Practically all of the links for Ipswich mean Ipswich in England. Can someone do it? Jooler 18:13, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I've moved the Ipswich page to Ipswich (disambiguation). However, we need an admin to delete the old Ipswich page so we can move Ipswich, Suffolk there. jguk 20:53, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Done G-Man 21:12, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * For information, the prefered procedure now is to list the page move on Requested moves. -- Solipsist 06:54, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Ah wait - it looks like this move was placed on Requested moves last night by User:jguk, following the discussion here, but User:G-Man has jumped the gun and completed the move. -- Solipsist 09:31, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oops sorry, I cant keep up with all these proceedure changes. G-Man 19:37, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Abu Ghraib
I may well be completely wrong but I would guess that most people who read this board would be on the side of the deletionists on Votes for deletion/Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (censored). I'm of the opinion that it sets a very unhealthy prcedent to have this "censored" page. It strikes me as particularly unhealthy that given all the possible offensive content on Wikipedia, that this particular page should have been singled out for this treatment. Whilst there may be a number of people who dislike seeing the pictures in the "uncensored" article, I see a political agenda being pushed through here. The article at Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse is already censored. The pictures have fuzzy bits over parts of the images that someone somewhere has deemed too shocking to show. The sole purpose of the separate page is to "lessen the impact" of the article. But the whole point of the story is the pictures themelves. It is like an article on photographic evidence for the existence of extra-terrestials without pictures. In this particular case, without the pictures there would have been no story in the first place. There would just have been unsubstantiated rumours of abuse. To remove the pictures is an attempt to water down the article so that it can be forgotten about, and this is political abuse of Wikipedia, and it is almost certainly being pushed by the in-built American majority that we have to suffer with. Jooler


 * I concur. Inclusion of this particular bit of censorship is PC taken to the extreme.  It is purely political, hidden behind concern for the welfare of children.  (I originally wrote 'pretended' concern in there, but I removed it, because I think that it is 'unwarranted' concern, given all the other things that there are on this site to be concerned about.)  Noisy | Talk 13:57, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Looks like you don't know what the term PC means. Production of this censored version is the antithesis of PC as it seek to protect TPTB.--Jirate 14:06, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

I see this as a problem of education. Many people seem to be unwilling to learn how to operate their browsers, or to trust others to learn these basic technical skills, and so try to produce these unnecessary kludges as a substitute for perceived problems. I regret the passing of the days when RTFM was taken seriously. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Defining Convention
Is it worth setting a policy for British place names in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names)? --Neo 15:23, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think we've already got a working convention, so it should be fairly easy. Major world cities: York is at York, London is at London. Manchester, Birmingham, etc, with disambigs for other cities and places named after those cities. Major name clashes (the many Newcastles, for instance) have a disambiguation page on the city name and, unless there is an existing common disambiguation (Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, etc) the convention seems to be either Name, Province (Newcastle, Northern Ireland) or Name, County (Boston, Lincolnshire while Boston redirects to the far more famous Boston, Massachusetts.. US cities generally are Name, State unless further disambig is needed).

What annoys me is a trend to put articles on famous buildings in their official name even where the buildings have a far more common name. Few people searching google for Canary Wharf Tower would know enough to type in 1 Canada Place D'oh! 1 Canada Square. Because of the way search engines like Google work and the way that interacts with the redirects on Wikipedia, this decreases the likelihood of a Wikipedia hit by someone using an external search engine. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:29, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Just move them, and point anyone who complains in the direction of Naming conventions (common names). Proteus (Talk) 16:44, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Can't. A similar move (from popular name to "official" name) just came up on requested moves and looks like it has a fairly strong consensus. So I'm just venting. Grrr. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:47, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Then perhaps those who are voting for the move to the correct name are voting for common sense rather than idiocy? Icundell 22:46, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I certainly wouldn't suggest that people who disagree with me do so because they're idiots. I have my viewpoint, they have theirs. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:34, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've attempt to phrase current convention as a policy at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names). Please have a look and comment on it. Warofdreams 17:09, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Countering US bias
Can I ask readers of this board to help counter some of the usual USA bias on Requested_moves

Re American versus British Wikipedia convention
Re this please see here, and here. WikiUser 21:07, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

please note that Jguk has decided that the British English for British subjects and articles already in British English well established convention on wikipedia, no longer applies. WikiUser 21:48, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I haven't. I've just noted that Wikipedia policy is that that is not an absolute rule and that there are exceptions (and that I would like to see those exceptions removed). The note I left on his talk page read as follows:


 * You write, "British English for British subjects and articles already in British English. Well established convention on wikipedia". This is not entirely true. It is a general principle, but the WP:MOS requires some exceptions to this. I disagree with these, but there is no consensus to remove these from the policy. These include the banning of the term "US" (we should always use "U.S." as that is the term more commonly used in that country!), and the more abused than respected policy that we should use the Oxford comma (which has all but died out in the UK except for the OUP). There are also requirements in WP:MOS to use American punctuation in some circumstances, even in articles otherwise written in British English.


 * I disagree with much of this; I'd far rather a straightforward "Use one standard form of English consistently in an article" approach, with a preference for a standard form of English appropriate to a particular article, if there is one. But most Wikipedians oppose such a policy, absent the exceptions outlined above, so we have to live without it, jguk 21:33, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, "use one standard form of English consistently in an article" is exactly what the recommendation says:
 * "Each article should have uniform spelling and not a haphazard mix of different spellings, which can be jarring to the reader. For example, do not use center (U.S.) in one place and centre (Australian, Canadian, British, New Zealandic) in another on the same page."
 * That is how it should be, but I think we are talking about occasions when someone actually changes the usage from one to another?


 * Re the double quotes WikiUser was talking about was that double quotes should be used in direct speech rather than reported speech. Dieter Simon 22:38, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Some rules are applied no matter what version of English is being used, for example the use of punctuation inside/outside quotemarks. Single quotes should not be used, with one reason being that they cannot be searched for ("one" is the same as one but not 'one').  This is the rule throughout Wikipedia.  violet/riga (t) 23:02, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * "Yes, "use one standard form of English consistently in an article" is exactly what the recommendation says:" -Dieter Simon. That's exactly what I did do, the article had only had one writer, and that writer was British, and it was about a British subject, and then someone came along and changed the ' (used for terms), to absurd direct quotes. I changed it back. Then I came here and started this discussion, and took the trouble to also put a note on Jguk's page as he has expressed forceful opposition to this same matter. His response was to dash straight to the page and put the American style in. And that led to me being constantly abused by peole here who take great delight in abusing me here making it HELL to try and use this 'facility' that I have contributed so well to.WikiUser 17:33, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I think we are talking about occasions when someone actually changes the usage from one to another? &mdash; No, we are talking about secondary modern school, where WikiUser used single quotes.  Mindful of the fact that people might want to search for "11 plus" and find this article, I changed them to double quotes, as per WP:MOS, and even linked to that from the edit summary just in case. WikiUser changed them back to single quotes, and then proceeded to state, quite bizarrely, in defence of that that "British people use double quotes for direct quotes".  (Xe's reverted the article to single quotes several times since.)  Yes, British people do use double quotes.  Using double quotes is also what the WP:MOS recommends.  And if memory serves, both Fowler and Partridge, which are pretty much as "British English" as one can get, say to use double quotes too.  Yet despite this, WikiUser is insisting upon the use of single quotes claiming anything else to be not "British English", simultaneously all the while asserting that "British people use double quotes".  It's all quite mystifying. Uncle G 17:54, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
 * EH? You say: "I think we are talking about occasions when someone actually changes the usage from one to another? — No, we are talking about secondary modern school, where WikiUser used single quotes." We are talking about when someone actually changes the usage from one to another. Which is what you did,as you know, I told you so at the time. Also in your post above you say: "and then proceeded to state, quite bizarrely, in defence of that that "British people use double quotes for direct quotes". This is descrimination against me that you would not do to another. I say that in British English it is the convention to use single quotes for terms and double for direct quotes and it is. There is no reason for you to say that what I say is bizzare. Double quotes look odd and grate for British people when used for things that aren't quotes. That's what we have been on about here. Who the hell are Fowler and Partridge? 'They american books? I've never heard of 'em?WikiUser 19:24, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I told you so at the time. &mdash; That you claimed it didn't make it actually the case. Who the hell are Fowler and Partridge? 'They american books? I've never heard of 'em? &mdash; I think that that says it all. Uncle G 17:31, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
 * Sorry I am becoming confused here, I use "Hi" for direct speech and attributable quotes, and 'Hi' when just highlighting something etc. I've always thought this was the correct thing to do when writing correct English, and was certainly what I was taught in an English school actually I don't think we were taught 'Hi' at all.  So whose side should I be on here? Giano 19:38, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Hello Giano. As I posted om uncle G's page:- "Thanks Just to say though that I don't like necessarily to have everything linked and especially dates. There's no reason to link dates normally. Also British people use double quotes for direct quotes, although I know you can use both. WikiUser 21:48, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC) " But he was unpleasant so I followed my usual practice of ignoring abuse if possible. I believe some people do use use both in Britain, but as you say, I've never seen it taught as correct in Britain. Use single quotes for terms, and for figures of speech/expressions.WikiUser 20:43, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I suggest being on the same side as the Wikipedia Manual of Style, which explains what Violetriga explained above. I also suggest that, given xyr failure to recognise the names Fowler and Partridge, probably the two most widely-cited authorities on English usage, that you take whatever recommendations WikiUser gives on the subjects of usage and copyediting with a huge sackful of salt.  (The Manual of Style cites Fowler, too, giving a hyperlink to MEU; and anyone who has read it should recognize the name.  I've referred WikiUser to the Manual of Style four or five times already, in edit summaries and on talk pages, as have several other editors.  Yet here we have "Who the hell are Fowler and Partridge?".)  The authorities make interesting reading on this subject.  Fowler is self-contradictory (MEU contradicting TKE); Partridge describes universal double quotes as being the original usage, but goes to great lengths to encourage a switch to single quotes, for aesthetic reasons that simply don't and cannot apply to HTML; Follett and Horwill are largely silent upon the subject; and Gowers (TCPW) apparently favours double quotes. I haven't checked Hart's yet. Uncle G 17:31, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
 * the Oxford comma (which has all but died out in the UK except for the OUP). &mdash; Not in my experience.  In my experience, it is alive and well. Uncle G 17:54, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

My concern continues about abolishing of a main wikipedia rule by a few people
(Main agreement between British and American users being flouted.) My concern is growing about a lot of trashing of Wikipedia rule that articles already in Br. English should not be mixed or converted to Am. English, and vice versa, which a small group of users have taken it upon themselves to abolish. Please see [this], and there are others.WikiUser 16:40, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * WikiUser seems particularly concerned about certain outdated conventions such as;
 * hyphenating words such as "re-published", rather than "republished"
 * placing an apostrophe in decades - e.g. 1970s > 1970's
 * insisting that sentences referring to individuals in biographic articles should not begin with "SURNAME was born in...", instead taking the form "FIRSTNAME SURNAME was born in..."
 * While these conventions were once commonplace in British English, I would contend that none of them are strictly adhered to, and are certainly no longer obligatory elements of written British English as it appears in current British publications.
 * I believe British English to be an evolving language, as is any other current language, and even if the changes have led to the introduction of grammatical or spelling conventions which are American in origin, they have become sufficiently entrenched to become part of conventional British English, in my opinion.
 * WikiUser's zeal in pursuing these conventions causes him to remove wikilinks, and introduce additional grammatical errors to articles, which creates further unnecessary work for other editors. - MykReeve 18:19, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * you are being personally offensive with no need and making false statements about what i have said and done. u r also making false claims about the rules and conventions on here. Just to state one example it is pumped out on the wiki so's any person of good faith can get it that "any style may be valid as another" but the long worked out convention, and indeed the only one that could bring about co-operation and not anarchy on the wiki is: don't change from one form to another on articles that are already in a particular form as i have said more'n once. OK?WikiUser 18:29, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not being personally offensive, and resent the accusation from someone who claims that I have been "trashing [a] Wikipedia rule", though I have not done so. I am explaining my justification for several specific grammatical edits that you persist in reverting. I am also highlighting that when you carry out your reversions, you have previously introduced additional spelling errors and grammatical errors, which have created additional work for other users. As far as I am concerned, my edits ensure that the articles being discussed here adhere throughout to the conventions of British English which have been established in other articles written in British English.
 * For example, the articles Bletchley Park, British Rail and Rail transport in Great Britain, to pick three British English articles, use links of the form 1970s, rather than 1970's throughout. Therefore, that should be the prefered convention in all British English articles, surely? - MykReeve 18:54, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * From a purely grammatical point of view, 1970s should surely be the preferred form. 1970s is an abbreviation for "nineteen seventies", whereas the apostrophe-s indicates the possessive: hence 1970's can and does mean "of 1970", as in "the Vietnam War expanded with 1970's US invasion of Cambodia". I personally don't like using the possessive to refer to a year, but it's permitted by the rules of English grammar. I think it would be a good idea to avoid confusion in this area. -- ChrisO 19:01, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Page move?
Just to let anyone who was not aware know there is a proposal in place to move Middlesex, England to Middlesex and therefore what is currently at Middlesex to Middlesex (disambiguation), which is being opposed quite vehemently by some due to the number of places called Middlesex in the United States. -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:45, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you are making a fair point. If there's Middlesexes in America they aren't known like Washington, say. We wouldn't expect Washington in Tyne-and-Wear or wherever it is to take precedence in listing over the place in America. Have you posted on the "anti-US bias project" that is somewhere on this madhouse, about this? I'll support your page change.WikiUser 17:05, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * There's an anti-US bias project? -- Francs2000 | Talk 17:10, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * yeah there is. i saw it about 3 months ago but i just spent about an hour lookin for it so's i could help yer an give yer the link, but this being the wiki there's no sign of it now. I did find this: Wikipedia Liars Club but as i was tryiner post it to yer myKreeve or whatever he's callin isself came on an blocked me post with his personally offensive message about how he want the wiki to be the laughin stock a the innernet.WikiUser 18:38, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you mean WikiProject Countering systemic bias? (By the by, I initially misread "anti-US bias project" as "project for promoting anti-US bias" rather than "project for countering US bias", and my reading of it sounded much more exciting. :-) ) Proteus (Talk) 19:28, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I support the change, it's much easier than redirecting the hundreds of misdirected links. There are a lot on Middlesex and only a very small ammount are intended to go anywhere other than the county. Rje 17:47, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

s'noticable that when u Francs, post on here 4 assitance u get two offers of help, an when i post on here for assistance on a key issue all i get is abuse.WikiUser 18:32, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Firstly I wasn't asking for assistance but merely pointing out that there was a discussion going on elsewhere that might be pertinent to other British people. Secondly this isn't a "get as many replies as you can" race: if someone wants to reply to your previous post they will.  Thirdly we are judged not by our statements but by our actions.  I would guess that MykReeve is reacting to something you have done over something you have said on here. -- Francs2000 | Talk  18:53, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Now they want to move Accountancy to Accounting. It's getting slightly ridiculous if I have to check WP:RM on a daily basis to ensure there's no IE->AE page moves going on (and that page only contains ones that need admin assistance - how many do not and are slipping through without us noticing?). Proteus (Talk) 13:10, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * This appears to be part of a kind of article naming creep. What was at Accountancy scandals was move to Accounting scandals of 2002 before it was moved to Accounting scandals. Slowly but surely "Accountancy" disappears. Jooler 13:25, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's only recently we've had the word transport - as in Transport in the United Kingdom accepted. It took a couple of reverts to keep Transport in Ireland from becoming Transportation in Ireland. Mind you, it's worse when you look at all the images supposedly of Transportation stations. A bit too modern for 18th and 19th century Australia if you ask me! jguk 19:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Where have all the flowers gone?
Just thinking of a way of boosting numbers on some of the discussions and projects at this page and its environs: what would people think of a regular newsletter posted to people's talk pages pointing out some of the things that are going on here? It's an extension of the existing mail-out that I use for UKCOTW changes and it only needs to be a couple of points. I'm just concerned that opportunities are being lost particularly with regard to discussions here, the UKCOTW and the looming meetup in Feb? What would people on the participants list think if they received a "What's new at the UK Wikipedians' Notice Board" message? -- Francs2000 | Talk 19:10, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * People who are genuinely interested in this page will watchlist it. There is no need to send out newsletters or other bumf. -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:25, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)


 * I'm just concerned mainly for the UKCOTW, which although has just been relaunched is sparsely populated and rarely used these days. -- Francs2000 | Talk 03:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I can see advantage in occasional news sent to talk pages when there's a change of style, for example: putting "2 May" on UK related pages and "May 2," on U.S. pages. While I have this page watchlisted, I don't always look at everything on my watchlist. I'd never heard of  the UKCOTW (a link would have helped), but as it happens have more than enough projects lined up already, thanks. So a notification of the (re)start of this would have been welcome, but please don't put me on a regular mail-out for it. dave souza 00:14, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Requested sports articles
Not really a purely UK topic, but we need as many helpers as we can get! Since rearranging the Requested_articles/Sports page there's been left a huge list of athletes/competitors that need to be placed under the relevant sport header. If anyone can spare 5 minutes to scan the list and move some names, or even take a letter and work through that it would be incredibly helpful! Head along to Requested_articles/Sports to help! Cheers, Grunners 05:28, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Meetup
Please vote for the date the next meetup should be held at Meetup/London. Angela. 22:24, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

A new national UK template is needed!
I am concerned about the number of templates for the UK proper/Crown dependencies/Overseas territories. While I believe the Template: namespace is a good thing, I do believe too much of a good thing is bad. As you all know, there are currently four templates. One (Template:United Kingdom), currently has the UK proper (Template:United Kingdom regions has the UK proper and the English regions), another (Template:Crowncolonies) has the Overseas Territories. Template:British_dependencies has the Overseas territories and Crown dependencies. Why do we have this repetition of data for? I don't see *how* this is helpful to other Wikipedians or general readers. To cure this, I think a single template that combines the UK proper, Crown dependencies, and Overseas territories. You can view the template at my personal sandbox. If you have any questions, discuss here! - Hoshie 05:11, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories are not part of the United Kingdom. Putting them in the UK template is like putting Puerto Rico in a US template. I think perhaps the UK Regions should be used instead of the UK template and British dependencies would probably suffice for both the Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies. Jooler 05:24, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I thought the OTs and Crown Dependencies are a part of the UK since the UK provides defence and conducts foreign relations on behalf of the OTs/Crown Dependencies. I know they aren't part of the UK the same way England, Scotland, Wales, and NI are. As for Puerto Rico and Template:United States, they are not the same as the OTs/Crown Dependencies. Puerto Rico is a part of the US (with some exceptions, such as tax). With this, I believe the new Template is a good idea. - Hoshie 02:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The Crown dependencies are not, and never have been, part of the UK. The constitutional link with the Crown has meant that the Bailiwicks and the Isle of Man have been precluded from conducting defence and diplomatic policies which might conflict with the interests of the monarch's United Kingdom. The situation might be said in theory to resemble a personal union. Man vyi 06:30, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template Template:United Kingdom) doesn't have the UK proper. THe UK is a single nation. Template Template:United Kingdom regions...why have the regions not the counties which are the British people's normal thing. Regions are not supported or voted for by hardly anyone- they're just what tory Blair and Presscot and the fascist EU have cooked up- although of course foreigners who know nothing about Britain think they're valid.WikiUser 18:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you seriously trying to say that the existence of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland was "cooked up" by Blair, Prescott and the EU? Since you're posting from Glasgow, why not go to a pub there and try repeating your theory that Scotland doesn't really exist? Do tell us how you get on... -- ChrisO 21:56, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Then I must be a foreigner who knows nothing about Britain. No wait, I'm a British citizen, and this is some surreal alternative universe where someone has just told me that England doesn't exist...  Please tell me you're having a bubble... -- Francs2000 | Talk  02:54, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * There is of course a more valid debate over whether the "regions" should be referred to as such, or can they still be called "countries". I would imagine most people are happy calling England, Scotland and Wales countries still, but Northern Ireland is a bit trickier! zoney &#09827; talk 12:08, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Well Scotland and Wales definitely have had their own national identities for years; England less so but could be called a country by defualt of the other two being named so. Whether they're countries, regions, kingdoms or nations is up for debate but to say that they're a fabrication of the current government is ignorant in the extreme. -- Francs2000 | Talk  16:51, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Far be it for me to stick up for WikiUser, but as far as I can make out from the tangled syntax, the "regions" comment was primarily intended to refer to Template:United Kingdom regions and its listing of English regions. As for Template:United Kingdom, I can't see anything to object to there. I'm unconvinced by the need for a template at all for the Crown dependencies and UK overseas territories - or, indeed, two - but the situation seems to mirror the typically convoluted overlapping constitutional arrangements of the British in all their motley. Man vyi 17:32, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, that makes more sense. Marginally. :-) Thanks for clearing that up... -- ChrisO 23:17, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

England, Scotland and Wales can be and are called countries and nations. Wales is often also called the Principality, but that usage seems at odds with the historical meaning of that title (Welsh Wales as opposed to English Wales). Northern Ireland is generally called a province, a title it borrowed from Ulster, which includes Cos. Donegal, Monaghan and Cavan as well as Northern Ireland. The Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS) divides the UK into twelve regions. England accounts for nine of these, while Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales account for one each. While it could be said that Scotland is a region of the UK, it is more accurate to think of Scotland as a constituent country of the UK containing one region. Another example is Luxembourg: it is a sovereign member-state of the EU, but it counts as one NUTS region because it's too small to be divided. People have thought of England in terms of regions for centuries &mdash; I think it goes back to the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms! Gareth Hughes 17:51, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template:United Kingdom regions was my compromise resulting from a debate in Template talk:United Kingdom between regionalists who wanted to be able to go from e.g. South East England to other parts of the UK, and nationalists who did not want to go from e.g. Scotland to something as insignificant as an English region. See which pages use them - it seems fairly stable. --Henrygb 20:14, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Baby boomer
The Baby boomer article is massively Americocentric, though most of the incoming links are from US-related articles. Baby boom is very poor too. Anyone know much about UK baby booms and could add to the article(s)? violet/riga (t) 12:36, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Photos
There is an attempt to build up a database of images from British counties at List of images/Places/Europe/United Kingdom/Counties, but as you can see it is rather incomplete.

It would be nice if everyone added their photos to the county images page, of whichever county it was taken in, and perhaps the city page as well, to help build up the database. I have already done some at images of Warwickshire, Northamptonshire and West Midlands. G-Man 21:38, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Did what I could with Buckinghamshire and even started Budapest to boot. -- Francs2000 | Talk 18:57, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In need of some help with a FAC
Hi all I could do with some help with a FAC, Test matches in the 19th century (to 1883) - which I'll probably rename History of Test cricket (1877 to 1883) once it's off FAC. I've spent quite some time getting it up to scratch, but it needs some more support/helpful comments to get it through to FA status. Any help on WP:FAC would be very much appreciated, jguk 21:09, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikiportal
Is there any support for a Wikiportal for the UK? (WP:UKCOTW has been a bit neglected recently, but a wikiportal would be more reader- (rather than editor-) facing.) -- ALoan (Talk) 13:08, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * It looks to me like those pages are specific subject Main Pages. That was discussed on here before iirc and glossed over rather quickly, but I think there's scope there.  Would it overlap this page though and would this and the UKCOTW become redundant once it's up and running? -- Francs2000 | Talk  14:32, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed, all the existing portals are subject-based, but the UK is an "area of knowledge" too! We have plenty of featured articles, and it would provide a more visible place for WP:UKCOTW and the "to do" list.   As I said, a portal would be more reader-facing: this would remain the noticeboard for editors. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:04, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * OK well I'm up for it. -- Francs2000 | Talk 15:10, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I am making a start at Wikiportal/United Kingdom. Give me a few mins to get is going, and then feel free to edit away. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How about this: I'll give you a few hours until I finish work...! (Don't finish until 10pm tonight) -- Francs2000 | Talk 15:33, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, don't wait - I'm pretty much done. Further discussion on Wikipedia Talk:Wikiportal/United Kingdom. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:13, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea, I'd been musing the idea of an Irish one after visiting Ireland information guide (a non-wikipedia mirror, wiki of en:'s Ireland-related content). zoney &#09827; talk 17:34, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh! They'd done the work for you ;) -- ALoan (Talk) 19:26, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

EU stub
Hi all,

There is a new Template:EU-stub. Please amend as necessary. I have added it to quite a number of articles, but there are many more in Category:European Union and subcats. Incidentally a lot of less major EU articles need organisation, copyediting, etc. I think our coverage of the EU is appropriate - it's a mess/maze of complicated and unclearly presented information. Could do with improvement.

Earlier talk on Wikipedia talk:Irish Wikipedians' notice board.

zoney &#09827; talk 11:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

London Meetup
I've been bold and just declared that the next London meetup should take place in a month's time (Easter Saturday, March 26th). Attendence notices, please. It'd be lovely to see you all.

James F. (talk) 22:30, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)