Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England/Archive 1

BBC
Why is the BBC article part of WikiProject England, surely it should be part of WikiProject UK Luckystars 15:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Templates
I added a table of templates, however, I didn't include the template because it screwed up the page. Anyone know what's wrong with it? --Veesicle (Talk) 20:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also I made a userbox template - I followed the style of userboxes of other WikiProjects, hope it's fine. --Veesicle (Talk) 20:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I noticed that too, here's an example of the weird things it does, although I inserted the code at the top of the discussion page: Talk:East_Anglia. --BrokenSphere 21:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I was going to note this issue as well, as there are a number of Scouting articles with the England template. You might try re-doing it using Template:ScoutingWikiProject as a basis.  If you don't want the quality tags, you can go back through the history.  I'm pretty sure we filed the serial numbers off of someone else's template.   --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Civil Parishes, etc
I see that one of the goals of this project is to improve the coverage of parishes within England beyond that of just a single line. This has exercised our minds on the Cheshire project, and you may be interested to read and take part in an ongoing discussion we are having on that project's talk page about this matter (though of specific relevence to Cheshire.) You can view the discussions on the Cheshire project's talk page, especially sections 3, 9, 12, and 13, together with the listed categories and templates given on the main project page. The tables contained here are also useful. Section 3 is a long one and it contains a lot of the key information of relevance here, though its initial information may not strike you of being of great importance.

We are in the process of sorting this out, but for us, the main idea has been to get hold of the concept clearly that a civil parish is not necessarily the same thing as its contained settlement, and that some civil parishes contain more than one settlement. Furthermore, there are unparished areas in some parts of the country that contain settlements and quite substantial towns. Consequently, we have arrived, or are close to arriving, at the position that there should be articles about civil parishes separate from articles about the parishes' settlements.

A further issue that I have just become aware of is that some civil parishes in the various boroughs of Cheshire are actually quite small. So much so that a group of civil parishes neighboring each other have been grouped together to have a joint parish council. (This may be an early stage in the process of merging civil parishes together to make them more viable, but that is speculation.) Although this is most apparent within the City of Chester borough, it also happens in some of the other boroughs of Cheshire. In a further twist, if a parish is so small and any grouping has not taken place, the parish may end up being placed in the administration of people appointed by and acting for the borough council (again, City of Chester has some of these, including the oddity and archaic Chester Castle parish.)

The previous paragraph's facts all add further weight, we believe, to making much more clear the distinction between civil parishes and settlements by having separate articles for each unless there are very good reasons not to (for example, a large civil parish, which is in effect, ruled by a town council and contains the whole of a large town and nothing else, such as Northwich, Middlewich, Congleton, and Nantwich and other towns in Cheshire.) There is certainly often enough distinctive information about a parish that can be included in the parish entry rather than the settlement's entry, since the former is an administrative entity, and the latter is a settlement,. So, the two kinds of articles can cover different kinds of things.

I've written more than I intended, and summarized swome things which can be read where I jhave indicated. Also, some of our discussions are ongoing, but I think we are arriving at a consensus of how to approach the issues, and what to normnally expect to see in the two kinds of articles. We have noted that the two UK-wide projects that have dealt with such issues before (WikiProject UK geography, and WikiProject UK subdivisions) are often rather quiet. We are surprised that the issues about civil parishes we have uncovered and discussed have not been discussed in either of them, despite some attempts to start discussion off. So we have tended to "take the initiative" in a way that we think works well for Cheshire, and could work very well for other counties. So, I hope this information is of use to your project. DDStretch   (talk)  00:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Lets make this project active
I am going to attempt to get this project underway! I am here because I was looking for independent editors to assist with my pet article in return for my help on their projects.

I suggest a good starting point is organising the front page. We need to provide an active, up to date resource that editors will keep returning to. Items such as help requests that get responses.

Lets start the debate: Item 1 - Goals.

The ones added by RHB are a good starting point,although I think we should be saying "Featured Article" rather than "GA status at least". I suggest another goal of "Providing assistance to other Wikipedians working on England based articles". How about County articles?

I think we would need to measure progress on the goals on a subpage. For example, a table showing how many parishes are "FA or A or GA or B or Start or Stub" on a month by month basis. We would need to come up with a style for the goal "Set a common style for English related articles".

MortimerCat 08:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll ask User:PocklingtonDan to run User:PockBot on Category:England, which should give a table on the category talk page currently rated articles and their quality. RHB Talk - Edits 18:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It can be run by anyone, but not on top level categories, and currently the categorising for England is a bit of a mess, so I'll leave it for now. RHB Talk - Edits

Suggestion no. 2
I think this projects main role should be to support the County sub-projects, such as WikiProject Cheshire, WikiProject Devon, WikiProject Cornwall and WikiProject Kent.

Some of these are nascent projects, looking for ideas on how to run a project. This project would be a great meeting place, to ask for help, formulating guidelines, passing on ideas, getting an independent non-local reviewer to pop by. This is what I was looking for when I found this project.

I think people are more likely to work on local articles so the County projects would be more active in productive output. MortimerCat 00:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Categories by English county
The US has the very useful Category:Categories by state of the United States, I don't think there is an english equivalent. Does anyone know? If not i'll start one off soon. GameKeeper 23:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

England article
If you could head over to Talk:England and offer your opinion on the article template, it would help to trim down the article and hopefully improve it. Thanks, RHB Talk - Edits 20:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

English Heritage
There is a small edit war occurring with English Heritage in Cornwall. A Cornish protest group is putting a biased (in my opinion) section in all of the Cornish sites, see list here, and a section in the main English Heritage article. Could a few independant people pop along, and express their opinion please. Putney Bridge 00:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

English law
I have some serious concerns about the quality of our article on English law, and have raised them on the Talk page. Please contribute to the discussion and help improve the article: Thanks. -- Mais oui! 09:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Talk:English law

Major changes
Hi there, I've noticed this Project seems very inactive, I would like to help bring it up to a well-known and very active WikiProject, if no-one objects then maybe we should start some work on this, if everyone agrees I'll be willing to make a logo and make the Project generally a bit more informative, if anyone would like to help it would be greatly appreciated. Telly addict  16:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

New infobox
A new infobox has been developed for use on UK places articles. If you have any concerns or appraisals, please make them at Template talk:Infobox UK place. Regards, Jhamez84 02:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have already made it plain that I do not support the dropping of the historic county field, but my objections have been ignored. If this is supposed to replace the existing templates it absolutely needs to provide the same information as the previous ones or a lot of editors are going to be very annoyed. Owain (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Consensus can change. It has. consensus has been assessed three times in response to your complaints, and in each case, the new consensus was not to your liking.  DDStretch    (talk)  14:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep the original England box. Some people are trying to roll out the new UK box on South Yorkshire articles, and I have been trying to revert.   L.J.Skinner wot 02:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * All six of them? Just for the republic of South Yorkshire? Jhamez84 03:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

New User Box
Hey guys, just made an optional user box which is pretty much exactly the same, but it has no border. Just for those users who have all other user boxes without borders, this one fits in. Here's what it looks like. If you like it, let me know and I'll add it to the table.

Blackkrash 20:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Assessments and inter-project working
I am an active member of the Cheshire WikiProject, and I've noticed after your latest drive for help that some articles that we have tagged and are assessing have been tagged in preparation to being assessed by theEngland WikiProject. Do we need to coordinate things here at all? It may make more sense to remove the articles in your list of places that are in need of tagging which are in Cheshire, so long as you have our assurance (which you can have), that we will be tagging them ourselves as quickly as possible. This would then leave more available time to people to tag articles in areas not covered by our project, and we would have less chance of getting into possibly unhelpful disagreements between the two projects assessments of a particular article's quality. The longer term solution would be to just have an assessment template, separate to the various interested project templates, which could be use for an assessment by any member of any interested project. I'd be grateful for comments. DDStretch   (talk)  16:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (First of all User:Tellyaddict has replied on my own talk page to a duplicate message I placed on his talk page. This is my reply to him.)
 * Thanks for the comments on my talk page. Yes, we could always agree to disagree, and I have also seen differing assessments of the same article made by different projects > However, this doesn't (to my mind) mean it is a good thing to see that, as it doesn't seem very professional, and could devalue the idea of assessments in casual readers' eyes. (e.g., they may think: "differing assessments; nothing done to resolve them; so do assessments matter anyway?") The other issue, as I mentioned, if the duplication of effort given that there are a very large number of assessments to be made. I still think it is worthwhile considering this more for these reasons, and would help foster the wikipedia ideal of working together. We could consider agreeing that if differing assessments have been made, the two assessors should get together and try to resolve the difference. I know this doesn't appear to be done in other cases at the moment, but it may be a good move to start to do it, as it would help "thrash out" any deficits in a much more rigorous way, and it might well enable the assessment itself to improve its own quality as a result. This would, of course, depend on assessors declaring themselves (which I think would be good proactice anyway), and it would require a written summary of why the assessment given was given. It would seem to me that this would definitely help editors know more of what needs to be done to improve articles.  DDStretch    (talk)  16:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There will always be differences of opinion & I don't think that is a bad thing - as it shows these are subjective & not an exact science (even with the assessment guidelines). In WikiProject Bristol our assessments not only have a stub, start, B, GA etc they also include what work is needed eg does the article have or need photos, infobox etc & this enables us to identify and track where particular input is needed.&mdash; Rod talk 18:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Nomination of category for merging/renaming
You may be interested to know that a nomination has been posted to change one of the categories you use in this project. It can be seen here. I didn't nominate it, but noticed it whilst looking at nominations that do concern WikiProject Cheshire. DDStretch   (talk)  19:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Assesment confusion...
It seems that WikiProject England is using two different inconsistent assessment templates ... some articles are tagged with, while others are tagged with. Probably the best way to fix this is to figure out which one you use the most, and make the other transclude that. See my related nomination Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_20. -- Prove It (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I noticed this last night but couldn't think of how to fix it neatly. I have transcluded the template into the  template as WPE is the most used one. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 20:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox flag straw poll
Hello fellow editors. A straw poll has opened today (27th March 2007) regarding the use of flags on the United Kingdom place infoboxes. There are several potential options to use, and would like as many contrubutors to vote on which we should decide upon. The straw poll is found here. If joining the debate, please keep a cool head and remain civil. We look forward to seeing you there. Jhamez84 11:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Who missing episodes FAR
Doctor Who missing episodes has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 16:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Moorgate FAR
Moorgate has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Listed buildings in England
Category:Listed buildings in England needs to be populated. Please add the appropriate tag to any listed building. Calineed 13:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Bilateral relations discussion
I would like to invite you all to participate in a discussion at this thread regarding bilateral relations between two countries. All articles related to foreign relations between countries are now under the scope of WikiProject Foreign relations, a newly created project. We hope that the discussion will result in a more clean and organized way of explaining such relationships. Thank you.  Ed  ¿Cómo estás? 18:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

James I of England FAR
James I of England has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject England/Article requests
WikiProject England/Article requests needs to be populated please. Any red links in articles or pages you think are needed should go here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Calineed (talk • contribs) 13:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Buckingham Palace FAR
Buckingham Palace has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Simply south 10:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Related project proposal: WikiProject King Arthur
The King Arthur project has been proposed at WikiProject Council/Proposals. Please take look and add your name to join the group! Wrad 18:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment, English people
Please feel free to comment on New Zealand numbers for ethnic English people in the Talk:English_people. Thanks. Alun 10:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Guten tag!
Tags were added to Talk:PS Maid of the Loch and Talk:Great Britain indicating that the articles were "within the scope of WikiProject England, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on England on Wikipedia". Now if it said "articles related to England" the latter case would make some sense, but the former is unlikely to get near the place. Hope you'll review where these tags are being put, and reconsider the wording. ... dave souza, talk 14:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony Blair FAR
Tony Blair has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher FAR
Margaret Thatcher has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.Marskell 08:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

English people
An anonymous user, User:69.157.113.195, User:69.157.101.107 and User:69.157.105.165 which appears to be the same person, given their edits and their timing, is editing this article adding unsourced, POV edits and adding back in things that were recently taken out after discussion on the talk page. I reverted a couple of their edits, but immediately they have put them back in again. I have no wish to get involved in an edit war, especially with a user using textpspeak language and whose motives I seriously doubt given some of their edit summaries (such as sick, cool, the peeps etc). Perhaps someone else could help as if I now start reverting again they will presumably just add the stuff back in again. They have also now started on the Briton article. But if I continue to revert their clearly POV edits they will just keep adding them back in. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦ · Talk 00:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Subcategories for people by location in London
A discussion has been continuing at WikiProject London about whether people in London boroughs should be subdivided into neighborhoods within those boroughs; please see (and comment at) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London. Several editors would like to upmerge these categories to the London borough level because the boundaries for these smaller regions are poorly constrained. However, some people want to keep the system because the categories may be used for people who lived in places before they were incorporated into Greater London (although they are all currently incorporated into the London borough categorization scheme). Please comment. I will propose a massive merge proposal on 22 Jun 2007 unless I receive negative feedback from more than two people about the merge proposal. Dr. Submillimeter 08:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Chew Stoke FAC
I've put Chew Stoke up as a Featured Article candidate. Any help of comments on the candidate page would be helpful.&mdash; Rod talk 11:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Cross namespace redirects
This WikiProject had a redirect of the form WikiProject Foo. These are routinely deleted per the self reference policy. You should choose a redirect of the form WP:Foo instead. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 15:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Football task force
For anyone that's interested, there is now an England task force at Wikiproject:Football. You can find it at WikiProject_Football/England task force. Paulbrock 11:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

History of Milton Keynes achieves GA!, but...
... the assessor advises that a third party copyedits for style. Clearly this is essential for it to get anywhere near FAC, let alone FA. It would be fabulous to get FA during our 40th birthday year. If anybody feels like doing this, or tell me where to find the professional editor volunteers, we'd be most grateful. --Concrete Cowboy 20:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have recently asked for a copyedit of Chew Stoke which is up as a FA candidate from WikiProject League of Copyeditors/proofreading - they may be able to help.&mdash; Rod talk 20:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Historic counties of England
This category is up for renaming at Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 10 and I think it needs expert advice from someone in England who really knows about this. Please take a look. --Bduke 01:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

New WikiProject
A new WikiProject on Bradford has just been started. If anyone is interested in writing and organising articles about Bradford, please sign up! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

North Sea collaboration
North Sea is the current Article Creation and Improvement Drive collaboration. WikiProject England members may find that a relevant focus. I have refrained from rating the article pending the result of the collaboration. Perhaps a regular member of this project could find a place for the collaboration banner on the project page itself? __meco 22:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

FAR
George I of Great Britain has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Epbr123 21:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

19th-century Lady Aylesbury
Reaction to Darwin's theory mentions an 1886 conversation between Darwin's friend Charles Kingsley and "Lady Aylesbury". I'm unable to find any Wikipedia article which seems an appropriate link for Lady Aylesbury. Can anyone help out with this? (Incidentally, if anyone knows of any other Wikiproject where this note could be placed, please do so - I didn't see one myself.) -- 201.19.11.75 12:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Lady Aylesbury" may refer to the wife of the Marquess of Ailesbury. ~ Scribble Monkey 14:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Peer review requested
Hi. Ruth Kelly is up for peer review here. Your comments are welcome. SP-KP 18:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Corn Laws article
Hi, as the newest member of the project I'm wondering if anyone can help me out. I'm going to try and get the Corn Laws article to WP:GA or WP:FA status (which it should be one of).

On the talk page I've started asking for feedback about the article, all help is appreciated. --SunStar Net talk 18:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Assessment question
What should be done about articles such as Ceol of Wessex and Ceolwulf of Wessex? These two have been merged into Wessex, because there is only a sentence or so that can be said about either of them. Both have a WP:England assessment. Do you want the assessment left there? In theory the article could be recreated if an editor can find enough to say about these kings. Mike Christie (talk) 10:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:PROD nominations

 * 24 August Deans Farm --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 17:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

FAC Buildings and architecture of Bristol
I have put Buildings and architecture of Bristol up as a FA candidate any comments/votes etc are welcome at Featured article candidates/Buildings and architecture of Bristol. &mdash; Rod talk 11:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

List of English monarchs
Seeking help at this article; should this list stop at 'Queen Anne', or should it also include the British monarchs (George I to Elizabeth II)? GoodDay 01:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Christmas tree farms
I have a photo request I was hoping someone here could help me with, as well as a couple of questions. I am looking for images of Christmas tree farms in the United Kingdom for an article about said topic that I am working on. Also, when referring to the country as a whole, should it be United Kingdom or Great Britain, or does it matter? Thanks. IvoShandor 06:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Charles II of England
Is under Featured Article review. Please help bring this article up to current featured article standard. Judgesurreal777 21:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

England national rugby union team a FAC
England national rugby union team is now a featured article candidate. There has been hardly any feedback (actually only one person has commented) so far, and would be great if some of you could cast your eyes over it and add your comments to the nomination page here. Thanks. - Shudde   talk  03:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Porposal for Somerset wikiproject
A proposal has been submitted for the creation of a Somerset wikiproject at WikiProject Council/Proposals. If anyone supports this or would be willing to contribute please comment/add your name there.&mdash; Rod talk 10:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This project has been launched at WikiProject Somerset. — Derek Andrews 14:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Blyth, Northumberland FAC
Hello, I've nominated Blyth, Northumberland for FA (candidate page). If anyone here would be kind enough to leave a comment or offer their support it would be very much appreciated, thanks.  Dbam  Talk/Contributions 17:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Awards section
I deleted this section which seems to have been added without discussion. Similar things happened to WikiProject New Zealand. I suspect a bit of self-awarding was the reason. Kahuroa 05:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Article assessment combination
Having assessed lots of articles in the last few weeks for WikiProject Somerset, I have noticed that out of the thousands of England related articles, 566 articles have been tagged with and that 375 of these are not yet assessed. Would it be possible for assessments done in county & similar wikiprojects to be used to populate this. Assuming that everyone is using Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment there shouldn't be too much variation - although the importance rating is likely to be different in local v national projects. If we could produce a table similar to that from the 807 collaborating projects at Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index using the assessments from the various projects this would shorten the job and reduce duplication. I have no idea about how to produce the code to make this happen, but looking around some of the relevant projects I see: And I'm sure there are others. Is this a crazy idea or could it be useful? and could anyone produce the code to make a bot collect this data?&mdash; Rod talk 15:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Bristol has 645 tagged articles
 * WikiProject Kent - 1323
 * WikiProject London/Assessment - 2630
 * WikiProject North East England/Assessment - 594
 * WikiProject Somerset - 1528
 * WikiProject Surrey - 623


 * Would it not be best to just add the WPE template to the articles that are tagged by the sub-projects? Initially any quality rating from a sub-project could be added to the template which would be a starting point. The rating would still be valid for articles that have not changed much since they were rated. This would allow the bot that produces the statistics to create the table for this project which would effectively be a combined table. The importance rating would need to be completed later as this may be different from that of the sub-project. If an article has templates from more than one sub-project and the ratings are different then I would guess just add the template and leave the rating out. Keith D 20:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But that would require adding that template to the 5000+ articles already tagged - I was hoping we could avoid that extra work & duplication.&mdash; Rod talk 21:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Get real people. This project is tagging articles which most of you will never even read. The duplicate templating by UK projects (UK, England, UK geo, counties) is appalling and an embarressment.

You need to either:
 * 1) Share a template between all UK projects (see WPBiography which is used by various biographical wikiprojects), or
 * 2) Get rid of the WP England banner altogether, and leave talk page tagging and article assessment to the lower level projects like WP Somerset. --Kingbotk (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (User:Kingboyk, bot is running and I'm in IE, it shares cookies)

Russell Watson: Which county is Salford in?
Hi, Wereon recently edited "Russell Watson" to state that Salford, where Watson was born, is in the county of Lancashire. However, the article "Salford" itself states that Salford is in Greater Manchester. I don't know enough about English counties. Could someone help resolve the confusion? Please discuss the matter further at "Talk:Russell Watson" Cheers, Jacklee 23:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Salford is in the historic county of Lancashire, and the administrative county of Greater Manchester. Greater Manchester was created on April 1, 1974 by the Local Government Act 1972. As Watson was born in 1966, he was not born in Greater Manchester.
 * Confusion resolved. &mdash;Wereon 23:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, right! Thanks for that. Should "(now in Greater Manchester)" be added in the body of the article to clarify the point? Cheers, Jacklee 23:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, technically Salford was in the administrative county of Lancashire, though I'm being pedantic. But Wereon is right in asserting the convention is to use the county of the time (i.e. pre74 Salfordians are from Lancs, and post-74 Salfordians are from Greater Manchester), as this is what the primary civil registration documents will say about birth/dwelling places. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible vandalism in project assessments
Would someone at this project take a look at the article assessments on Talk:Joseph Merrick please? It's not clear to me why this person should be considered a top-level importance on so many projects. WhatamIdoing 04:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Expert review: Beccles bell tower
As part of the Notability wikiproject, I am trying to sort out whether Beccles bell tower is notable enough for an own article. I would appreciate an expert opinion. For details, see the article's talk page. If you can spare some time, please add your comments there. Thanks! --B. Wolterding 18:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Clearly notable for history & architecture (listed by EH). I've added a comment & edited the article.&mdash; Rod talk 19:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Manual of Style (biographies): British, or English, (Northern) Irish, Scottish, Welsh?
Hi, there's currently a proposal by me for "Manual of Style (biographies)" to be clarified with usage notes regarding the use of "British" or "English", "(Northern) Irish", "Scottish" and "Welsh" to be used to describe the nationality of persons in biographical articles. Do provide your views at the "talk page" so that broad consensus on the matter can be reached. Cheers, Jacklee 16:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

House of Commons FAR
The featured article the house of commons has been nominated for a review to check that the article currently meets the criteria needed for featured status. Please visit WP:FAR for further details —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadseys (talk • contribs) 16:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

British House of Commons‎ has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

English monarchy & British monarchy
There's a discussion occuring at List of English monarchs concerning wether the list should end at 1707 OR continue into the British monarchy. In otherwords, did the English monarchy become the British monarchy in 1707, while the Scottish monarchy ended OR did the English & Scottish monarchies unify into the British monarchy. GoodDay 23:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Local government districts of England
Hello WikiProject England participants,

Just thought I'd make you all aware that a (very basic) Template:Infobox England district has been put together in an effort to standardise infoboxes used on shire districts through to metropolitan boroughs. It wouldn't strictly be used on districts that are coterminate with settlements (like the major cities; Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham), but is intended for places like Metropolitan Borough of Rochdale, Kirklees, North Lincolnshire, Cherwell (district) etc etc to replace the rather unslightly, inconsistent "pink" faux-infoboxes currently in use.

It is very basic (I can't stress that enough!), and would benefit from a bit of a tune-up and automation from some of the more technically minded editors of the project. A point for communication is that this is an England-wide infobox as each country within the UK has it's own non-compatible system of local governance. Hope it's well recieved. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Geography question
Being a stupid American, I'm having a small bit of trouble understanding English geography. Is the Lake District within Cumbria exclusively (this is what I think the maps are showing), or is it that the county is just one that has Lake District land on it? Any explanation would be very helpful, Van Tucky  Talk 03:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * VanTucky, it is my understanding that The Lake District is in Cumbria, I'll have a look around shortly, and get back to you with a definite answer. Qst  18:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply. Cumbria is in North West England, and the lake district is also in NW England, so yes, the Lake District is in Cumbria. Cheers, Qst  14:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Lets give this Project some life!
How about it? Editing England articles, tagging necessary articles? I'll make a start in a couple of weeks if no one objects, help would be appreciated! Qst 18:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Lol, you don't need permission to edit. Also, if it's really the case that those things aren't happening already then WPE definitely should be deleted... --Kingbotk (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (user:kingboyk)

Welfare
Could someone with a bit more knowledge of the history of English football explain to me what the term Welfare in the names of football clubs Armthorpe Welfare, Brodsworth Welfare, Glasshoughton Welfare and Nostell Miners Welfare refers to or stands for? This with regards to the article Football club names. Thanks in advance. A ecis Brievenbus 12:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, Sorry but I'm not to good on football, however, this Project has been inactive for a while now, and I wil hopefully be beginning work to bring it back to life, so your comment might not get a reply here. Sorry about this, Qst  14:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth I of England
Is now at Featured Article Review, so please take a look, and help the article keep its featured status! Judgesurreal777 21:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

WPLondon items
Is there really a point to using a bot to tag items belonging to a daughter project of this project, ie WPLondon? Is this not unnecessary duplication? Kbthompson 01:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really, WikiProject England (although unofficial) is more of an inactive parent Project to WikiProject London, as it has thousands more articles within the scope. The tagging by Reedy Bot (as requested by me) is to get the Projects name out there, and tag the appropriate articles. There are 24,000 England stubs, and there are (as an estimate) about 80,000 other England related article... Qst (talk) 11:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't seek to deny the relationship of London to England, although you might run into problems tagging Cornish articles, they seem to have a strong nationalist streak - if the mapping arguments are anything to go by.
 * The problem comes about when (say) Aldgate gets tagged by London, Architecture, London Transport, England and Medieval literature (Chaucer). We can reduce the tags by tagging it London and (say) changing the London template to also include the WPEngland name? The question, I suppose, is does the tagging help the article development? Is there any significant difference when attempting to improve an article from a London standpoint, as from an England standpoint compared to the difference between (say) England and Architecture ...
 * At the very least, the bot should recognise multiple banners and do a banner collapse on the talk page. Cheers Kbthompson 11:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I do agree that talk pages are often cluttered up by bots adding WikiProject banners, If I remember rightly, there is a template to tidy up all the banners, if you give me two minutes, I'll find it — then if you tell me which articles you would like me to do this at, I'll sort it out :) Qst (talk) 12:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I found the template, its here, it has the syntax details on the template page I believe. Qst (talk) 12:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * All London pages (that's over 15,000 pages) that now bear, any two or more of:
 * WPLondon
 * WPLondonTransport
 * WPArchitecture
 * WPSkyscrapers
 * WPRivers
 * WPCanals
 * It is seriously out of hand, I don't blame you, or your intentions. ...
 * I can see a need for some important buildings, events, people - but everything? Kbthompson 15:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Sportsmen
I see from my watchlist that this project's template has just been added to masses of articles about footballers, cricketers etc. As these biogs seem to fall outside the stated scope of this WikiProject I wondered if this was appropriate? --Dweller 17:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The bot is currently going through all the articles relevant to England, so if the person is English, or has some kind of relativity to England, the banner will be added :) Qst (talk) 17:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can see that. The question is should it? --Dweller 17:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. It was programmed too. Qst (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not what I meant... I'll assume you didn't understand me, rather than that you were being unnecessarily facetious. I was unsure why WikiProject England would take an interest in Bally Smart, for example, a South African youngster on the books of Norwich City (admittedly, that happens to be a football club in England). When I read the Project's stated goals on these pages, I was even more confused, as sports biographies do not fall within your purview, according to your own definitions. I'd understand you flagging the football, rugby, cricket (etc) clubs, but not the sportsmen. For one thing, it's too ephemeral - when (in a year's time) our S. African youngster is transferred to a German club, are you going to "unflag" him? Even more to the point, I can't see any work being done by members of this WikiProject on said articles that isn't better off being done by the exceedingly vibrant and well-established cricket, football (etc) WikiProjects. Seems a little pointless to me. --Dweller 20:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Is Reedy Bot giving a bad name to this project?
I'm guessing that this project supports the tagging of articles with the England banner? I have tried complaining to the bot but it continues to add boxes to articles that are already part of the Derbyshire, Bedfordshire and Somerset projects. Now it may seem nice to see that Project England now has thousands of articles tagged but its not a useful use of time and makes some poor editors talk page a spam template mess. Just remember that Wikiproject UK are going to tag all the England articles... oh and wikiproject Europe ... and Geography ... and English ... and ... Can someone please stop this bot. Does anyone support this bot? (I note it has done useful work in the past and some of its work now may be useful Victuallers 17:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, I hardly believe that one extra banner (assuming the articles you are talking about appear to have numerous tags on) would suddenly make the talk page look messy and cluttered... Qst (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No one was opposed to this bot, by the way. About 10 days ago I left a section here about giving this project some life, I stated that if nobody objected I would start work within a couple of weeks, obviously this wil have meant Project tagging... Qst (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Now currently stopped until some decision is decided... Is it just a case i've gone too far on the category sub tree..? Reedy Boy 17:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Qst... thanks for stepping up. I guessed that this had been discussed. Was there a trial? A lot of the work for England happens at the sub-project level... I don't check the talk page.. I'm too busy contributing... many others are too. I See Reedybot has complaints from a number of users. Maybe we should discuss a way forward? Victuallers 17:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * May I suggest that sub-projects, like WPLondon carry a plug in the banner for either WPEngland, or the England portal. This could also usefully be carried out for skyscrapers-architecture, etc .. With the sub-projects agreement? Kbthompson 23:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It is also possible to "Nest" the project banners, as seen at say Talk:Manchester, which has four wikiproject's support (and I think the additional support is something to welcome anyway). -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * WP UK Geo has now muscled in on the tagging act, so that does indeed seem the way to go. I welcome the support of the parent projects, but I think excessive clutter on the talk page is counter-productive - others mileage may differ. I think the one to use is On some pages it will also be necessary to put up a 'jump to table of contents', so maybe use AWB rather than a bot and check each page.
 * It's also a nuisance when your watchlist lights up like a Xmas tree, and it's no longer possible to keep an eye on either vandalism, or conversations that are moving articles forward. Kbthompson (talk) 09:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Share a template between all the UK related projects (see my post above). It's simple and won't annoy people so much. The overtagging of UK pages is as I said above embarressing, the banner shell is a kludge not a solution. Kbthompson said a similar thing some months ago... --Kingbotk (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Oldham
Hello WikiProject England participants!

Just a breif note that Oldham is currently a featured article candidate! If you would like to leave comments, support (!), or.... oppose the article, you can do so here. Thanks folks, -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

FAR
Everton F.C. is under FAR. Buc 15:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation of English buildings and geographical features
Is there currently any official guideline about the correct format for articles which contain place names in their titles. Should we use commas or parentheses? There seems to be confusion across Wikipedia about how to disambiguate such articles. We have for instance River Axe, Devon but River Lyd (Devon). English churches mostly seem to use commas but lots of American churches use brackets, eg, St. Peter's Church. A naming guideline for schools at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (schools) has come unstuck because no agreement can be reached on the issue. Any ideas? Dahliarose 15:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest looking at WP:GEO (hope I got that right), there is an issue about Google not being able to cope with one of the formats, I think "". HTH Kbthompson (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

East End of London
Since we're unashamedly plugging, East End of London is also a Featured article candidate, please feel free to read the article and leave your comments on the candidate page. Of course I would value any support that you can give, but equally please provide constructive criticism to move the article forward. Kbthompson (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * East End of London has achieved FA status. Kbthompson (talk) 10:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Manchester
Just to let people know that Manchester is up for WP:FAC! Please add any comments with support or opposition (with details why please) on Featured article candidates/Manchester if you have not significantly contributed. Thanks in advance! └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 01:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Similarly, Manchester has achieved FA status. Kbthompson (talk) 10:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Palace of Westminster
Palace of Westminster has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. hbdragon88 (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Somerset FAC
Just to let people know that Somerset is up for WP:FAC! Please add any comments with support or opposition (with details why please) on Featured article candidates/Somerset if you have not significantly contributed. Thanks &mdash; Rod talk 10:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Somerset is now getting dangerously near the bottom of the FAC list and hasn't yet got sufficient support. If anyone had time to review the article & place any comments at Featured article candidates/Somerset we may be able to address them before the article fails to get promoted within available time.&mdash; Rod talk 09:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

National parks of England and Wales
I've started looking at National parks of England and Wales as I've been editing Exmoor trying to get it up to GA & was looking for ideas. I'm amazed that this is still a FA with no inline citations to verify the information given, which may not have been required when it became an FA in 2004 but is now. I'm happy to do some of the work on improving this if others are willing to help - otherwise would it be best to put it up for Featured article review on the grounds that it fails 1(c) of the Featured article criteria which says "that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations where appropriate." Putting it up for FAR may get a wider audience & more people to work on it, but before this is necessary would anyone from this wikiproject be willing to help?&mdash; Rod talk 21:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

FAR National parks of England and Wales
National parks of England and Wales has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.&mdash; Rod talk 20:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Altrincham
Hello team,

Just a note that Altrincham is a current featured article candidate. The nomination/discussion page is found here. -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

White Dragon (England)
Hello again team,

Can I bring the project's attention to White Dragon (England) where there appears to have been an ongoing nuclear edit war since the middle of 2007. This article needs a thorough check through for statement-to-source verifcation. -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Tagging England articles
I thought you'd like to know that I am tagging the England articles, but I won't be assessing them because I am not a member of this Project and I am an Apprentice Editor from Australia. The England articles are bookmarked on Firefox not my Userpage. Kathleen.wright5 09:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)