Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Devon/Archive 3

Photos of where?
Had some photos uploaded to Commons with mystery locations:


 * Some of the other titles look strange as well (e.g. Hadrian's Wall on top of an escarpment near Grasmere, Chester, UK, 1983.jpg). It's actually Highshield Crags in Northumberland.--NHSavage (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * NHSavage, that photo above is Kingswear Castle. —S MALL  JIM   21:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, I managed to identify that one which is why I didn't mention it above. "Totnes Castle" is definitely Hadrian's Wall too, it matches the centre of File:Hadrian's_wall 2 - 1983.jpg. All this suggests this user's uploads are badly described and could be just about anywhere. Worth sorting out though, eg the Freshwater Bay one has quite high value because of the 3rd stack.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Seems like these are not that closely related at all. North Devon (or perhaps Cornwall?) is probably still the best bet for Road running along the Devon Coast. Do you want me to add any of this to the images or will you do that? --NHSavage (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll go over these later, and fix any remaining (especially filenames). If anyone else wants to improve the descriptions, go ahead :)--Nilfanion (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I have posted some links to the unknown ones to my Facebook account - several people I know are walkers who get around, so they might just recognise somewhere!--NHSavage (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I am wondering if the "Road running along the Devon Coast" shot could Pencannow Point near Crackington Haven. This picture from streetview looks close, but I can't match the exact position. Then again after a while all headlands start to look alike. I will have to call it a day at this point, as I have other things to do!--NHSavage (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Circumstantial evidence suggests neither the ruins nor the road to village are on Dartmoor (there's some snow in the ones definitely of the moors). The village might be in the Cotswolds?--Nilfanion (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * WT:UK Wikipedians' notice board might be the best place to ask about what's left. Like NHSavage, I can't identify the headland, despite its distinct notched profile – there's obviously a bay or estuary between the viewer and the headland, or maybe it's actually an island. —S MALL  JIM   16:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * FWIW A Facebook friend who lives on Dartmoor and walks a lot there said "That does not look like Dartmoor to me. Looks more like chalk downland somewhere."--NHSavage (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Leats
I've spent a bit of time prepping data to create the map to the right of Devonport Leat - I've got Drake's Leat offline too. I can easily tweak the map, so looking for feedback. One tweak I could do is colour-code to show current status (flowing, visible, buried), but the map is already fairly overloaded.

Also made me notice the poor state of the article; which I'll work on at some point...--Nilfanion (talk) 01:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Some quick thoughts. Great work - I know from my own meagre efforts (File:Eylesbarrow mine plan01.gif) how much time this takes. It needs a legend, of course (or is that assumed to follow?). In this thumbnail view the dashed red line draws the attention more than the leat. In the full-scale map I'd like to see some names (Burrator, Dousland, the rivers, etc), and roads and settlements (so we can see where it goes through and near), and contours (so we can see how its route was dictated by the topography). What's needed is to show more detail as one zooms in, but I don't suppose that's possible. Overall, any customised map like this should illustrate whatever the text ends up describing: I'd be happy to help expand the article if you want. —S MALL  JIM   18:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with first comment and I intend to get a richer version, with legend, in time - view it as work in progress. Aim for detail is have a useable thumb, with the high resolution version showing more. As a general route map its never going to show fine details, basically anything not visible on 1:100K scale mapping won't show.
 * The biggest issue really is there are two distinct sets of features - historical and current - which do not totally coincide. The biggest features are common - intakes, outflows, reservoirs etc. But in general the two periods need different labels, and possibly a different area covered. eg Settlements, historically Devonport c1800 is the key settlement and Dousland didn't exist. In modern terms, Plymouth is a huge feature and pointing out the Dartmoor settlements risks undue weight.
 * Contours - IMO too much detail at this scale. The route is visibly following contours, and that can be described in text. Its only the stretch to Cramber Tor that's usefully close to a major contour, and to show useful contours for the majority of route would require too many gradations. A simpler relief bg might work better for that (ie more visible colour change at certain levels).
 * Agree Dartmoor boundary line is too prominent - toning it down is obvious.
 * To me, this almost suggests two distinct maps - one for the historical route and another for the current moorland bit (to Roborough Down?). That could work well with a more developed article (with a mature history section).--Nilfanion (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "We need two maps" is just what I was saying to myself while I was reading that. On p.248 of Thurlow's Dartmoor Companion (2001 ed.) is an interesting London Underground/Wikipedia canal graphics-style plan of the present-day route of the leat. Might something like that be another option? —S MALL  JIM   23:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That might well be best way forward (Two quite different graphics adds more value than two very similar ones, unless direct comparison of the 2 is beneficial). I suggest further discussion about that article should be on its talk page.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at ~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man ) 05:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Plymouth move request
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.121.43 (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Anyone interested in a meetup in Plymouth?
Apologies for the short notice, but I'm organising a Wikipedia meetup in Plymouth on Thursday evening (I happen to be in Plymouth to run a Wikipedia event at Marjon University). If you'd like to come, please sign up. If the date doesn't work, but you'd be interested in a future meetup in Plymouth, please add your name in the apologies section. Thanks, and apologies again for the short notice, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  20:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

More photo locations?
Ok another set of photos to localise. These are definitely Devon unlike the previous batch.

The paintings are obviously harder... :)--Nilfanion (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Some of those are pretty tough. I'll take the low hanging fruit. The view of Bren Tor is from Station Road, Mary Tavey. Street view: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.6006317,-4.1371136,3a,30.4y,278.06h,80.68t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sTX_Vq5SKfYLE24JEw5L5bA!2e0 --NHSavage (talk) 21:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * For "distant sunlight", which is taken about an hour after the ones at Bren Tor, I am sure it is the same side of the moor and it is a reasonably large road (for Dartmoor) as it has a white line down the middle. I am fairly certain is on the B3212 from Yelverton to Princetown here: The vegetation is about right, and also there is a transmission line with posts in the right places relative to the hills. Any thoughts? --NHSavage (talk) 13:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Also based on this photo and caption the Tors are from left to right: Cox Tor, Middle Staple Tor and Great Staple Tor and this also fits with the OS map. I am dead certain now.--NHSavage (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Final one - "nice view" is, I am pretty sure, taken from Higher Rowes Farm B&B. If you read the captio, it mentions staying at a farm in Horndon. The B&B's website has a picture with a similar skyline. http://www.hrowesfarm.co.uk/ --NHSavage (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Scenic view is I think taken from the Southern fringes of Dartmoor looking north. It reminds me of the view from Ramshorn down e.g. but I need to dig some more.--NHSavage (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!


Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

See Strete Gate
This article should be kept as it is. There is a special template and a Category of Category:Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty in England. It would be the same foolish decision f.ex. to merge all these National Register of Historic Places in Missouri by splitting them, and merging them into other existing "Places" or "Areas". All the AONB are officially registered, and take note:


 * ''„There are 46 AONBs in Britain (33 wholly in England, four wholly in Wales, one which straddles the English/Welsh border and eight in Northern Ireland).
 * The first AONB was designated in 1956 in the Gower Peninsula, South Wales.“''

Otherwise you have ask the same for the following as well:
 * South Hampshire Coast
 * Surrey Hills AONB
 * Sussex Downs AONB
 * Arnside and Silverdale
 * and so on. That is surely not the intention about the creation of the category and/or the special template. Keep it as it is. -- Gary   Dee  10:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Discussion is at Talk:Strete. —S MALL  JIM   11:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

List of public art
Please populate List of public art in Devon; see for a guide. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there such a parallel for Wikitravel? This seems like the sort of list which would have more value there.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  03:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Importance scale for councils
I would like to discuss the importance scale within WPDevon given to local authorities in Devon. My proposal is as such:
 * Top: Devon County Council
 * High: Plymouth CC and Torbay Council
 * Mid: district councils (i.e. Exeter City Council and North Devon)
 * Low: historical authorities, town councils or anything else.

Any thoughts on this? Torbay is currently mid and Exeter is currently low, so these would be the only changes.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  03:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Welcome back, JJ! Thanks for the work on tidying Devon you've been doing recently. Regarding the above, as long as you stick to the principle behind the priority scale, I'd say go for it – I haven't checked, but I'd guess that the present classification has accumulated piecemeal from several people's opinions over an extended period. —S MALL  JIM   13:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Beacon Villages
I wouldn't ordinarily post minor deletion requests here, but Beacon Villages has had be relisted twice due to lack of discussion. Hopefully some of the people involved in this project might have some input. Thanks,  Jolly  Ω   Janner  08:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I added my 2p. —S MALL  JIM   12:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Project related RM
Talk:Tor (disambiguation). Please see Talk:Tor In ictu oculi (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

4,000 articles
At 3:13, 17 February 2016, Richard Langdon became the 4,000th article to be tagged under the scope of WikiProject Devon. Just thought I'd post this milestone, as the project has gone a little quiet. Thanks to everyone involved! I've expanded the article a little bit and nominated it for Did you know?.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  00:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Glad you're still keeping the project alive, JJ. —S MALL  JIM   21:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The West Country Challenge
We're planning on running WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge in the summer. It is based on the WikiProject Wales/Awaken the Dragon model, a very successful contest/editathon which saw the improvement and creation of over 1000 articles and 65 Good and Featrued articles. If you'd like to replicate this success for your county, please sign up at the contest page in the participants section. It is intended for both people who might compete in it and for those just interested in independently contributing.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Cleanup list & assessment
In preparation for The West Country Challenge I've been having a bit of a go at the WP:Devon Cleanup list. Hopefully when it is next updated (probably on Tues 12 July) it will show a couple of hundred article issues resolved in the last couple of weeks (but there is still plenty more to do). While looking at various articles I've noticed that lots of them have out of date assessments of both quality and importance. I've looked at WikiProject Devon/Assessment but found some of the importance criteria a little unclear and, as I'm not part of this project, I didn't want to change them - would anyone else fancy reviewing these? Also 10 articles have never been assessed for importance and 30 have not been assessed for quality.&mdash; Rod talk 14:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Rod. Thanks for coming across the border and helping out. The Devon project has been pretty much dormant for a few years now – we don't currently have anyone with the commitment that you've shown for Somerset. I dabble and try to deal with anything important, but get easily distracted :(
 * Regarding the unclear importance criteria, do you mean the "Priority scale"? (It should be called "Importance scale" I think.) I reworded that a few years ago from the basic formula to avoid topics with little relevance to Devon being listed as higher importance (a problem at the time IIRC), without being prescriptive over every individual topic area. There's no intention to rate Devon articles any differently to others, so if you want to update any current WikiProject Devon assessments based on your knowledge, please do. I'll deal with the unassessed articles if you like. Most of them will be fairly new pages, since I dealt with several hundred last summer (q.v.). Thanks for the help!  —S MALL  JIM   10:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Having now looked at lots of the Devon articles (& got the cleanup list below 900) I would suggest merging the small hamlets etc, which often only have one line of text "X is a hamlet in Devon" or similar, into the parishes in which they sit. This would reduce the number of very small stubs which may not be notable enough (ie have enough information in reliable sources) to make significant articles in their own right (leaving redirects as appropriate). This is the approach we have used in Somerset leading to more complete articles about the parish.&mdash; Rod talk 19:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The West Country Challenge
Would you like to win up to £250 in Amazon vouchers for participating in The West Country Challenge?

The The West Country Challenge will take place from 8 to 28 August 2016. The idea ito create and improve articles about Bristol, Somerset, Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, Dorset, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire.

The format will be based on Wales's successful Awaken the Dragon which saw over 1000 article improvements and creations and 65 GAs/FAs. As with the Dragon contest, the focus is more on improving core articles and breathing new life into those older stale articles and stubs which might otherwise not get edited in years. All contributions, including new articles, are welcome though.

Work on any of the items at: or other articles relating to the area.
 * Core articles
 * Missing article hotlist
 * Missing photograph hotlist

There will be sub contests focusing on particular areas:
 * Bristol (Day 1-3)
 * Cornwall and Scilly (Day 4-6)
 * Devon (Day 7-9)
 * Dorset (Day 10-12)
 * Gloucestershire (Day 13-15)
 * Somerset (Day 16-18)
 * Wiltshire (Day 19-21)

To sign up or get more information visit the contest pages at WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge.&mdash; Rod talk 15:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages
Greetings Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:


 * Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, — Delivered: 17:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I voted for this, and would encourage anyone else to do so too before the 12 Dec deadline. WikiProject Devon/Popular pages was useful for several reasons, not least to see which articles were most in need of improvement. —S MALL  JIM   11:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Update: it passed the first hurdle, at 8th-equal place, see 2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Results. Progress can be tracked at T141154. —S MALL  JIM   20:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Cornubian batholith
I have tried to rewrite Cornubian batholith to make it less technical. Would someone be willing to take a look at it and see if the too technical tag can now be removed? I have some further improvements to make but I'd welcome some input. Thanks.--NHSavage (talk) 08:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I think you've done a great job of wrapping simple explanations around the complexity. I've replied in more depth on Talk:Cornubian batholith – let's continue discussion there. —S MALL  JIM   10:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Town or village?
There's a discussion at WikiProject UK geography about whether some settlements should be described and categorised as towns or villages. The examples cited have been from Devon, including Chagford, Chulmleigh, Colyton, Modbury, Moretonhampstead and South Brent. Opinions and/or solutions welcome. —S MALL JIM   18:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Should these tributaries be links to the main river?
At List_of_rivers_of_England all the tributaries of the River Culm which are Main rivers are red links. It seems to me that these are all too small to really deserve their own articles. Would it make sense to create a section on tributaries in the article on the Culm? The info on each could include their source, where they join the Culm and the origin of their names (plus possibly some photos). --NHSavage (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Looking at other counties with fewer redlinks on that page, there is a definite preference to write articles on these streams rather than redirect to the parent. It may be that they're considered inherently notable. The main exception I noted is the River Quaggy (listed under List of rivers of England), and most of those tributaries are very short. —S MALL  JIM   11:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Peer review for Bonville–Courtenay feud
G'day, not sure if it has been posted here before, but please be aware that a peer review has been requested the Bonville–Courtenay feud article. The review can be found here: Peer review/Bonville–Courtenay feud/archive1. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Procedurally this has been a bit of a mess! It appears that if no more comments are forthcoming on the peer review by 25 Jan, it will proceed to the GA review that has already started. As long as a decent lead is added (pinging User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi), that seems to me to be the best course. —S MALL  JIM   17:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks both for this. Yes, it is, as we say in the trade, a bit of a cock-up. First of all I asked for PR; one (excellent, mind you) response, and that was it. Then another (equally excellent) response- but by which time I'd forgotten about the thing. Then months later nominate it for GA, having still not remembered it was sitting there, until OzRupert reminded me the other day. By which time, of course, something like nine months had passed. D'OH! Sorry about that gents.  O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  18:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * G'day, the peer review can, in reality, be closed at any time, if you wish. I was only waiting two weeks as that was what I'd originally posted. I'm not tied to keeping it open if that isn't desired. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, will post at /Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of. We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
 * The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
 * The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
 * The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to for his original, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)