Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Yorkshire/Archive 2

Aims
To get the discussion started on specific aims for the project -


 * To complete tagging and assessment of all Yorkshire related articles
 * To recruit more active editors
 * To bring our top level article Yorkshire up to Featured article status
 * To bring all other top priority articles (currently 15 with 2 at FA) to at least Good article status
 * To set up a weekly or monthly selected article improvement drive
 * To produce a regular news letter for circulation to members

Any thoughts? Keith D (talk) 13:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * These aims have my support.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe these aims could now go on the project page - wait for feedback - then discuss what?, who?, when? and how? for each item.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably as it seems like just the two of us actively doing any work on the project. I am slowly working on the first point, currently in the West Yorkshire categories but there is South Yorkshire to tackle yet. Keith D (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Museums in Yorkshire
Could I ask for some help accessing local knowledge, from members of this wikiproject, on the behalf of the new WikiProject Museums? We are currently trying to identify articles within the Museum projects scope (& develop guidelines to help improve them etc). There is a List of museums in West Yorkshire, List of museums in South Yorkshire & List of museums in North Yorkshire. Could you take a look at the list for your local area and see if any are missing or create articles for any red links. Could you also add the new project banner " " to the Talk pages of the articles, so that we can identify those in need of work etc. Any help appreciated &, if anyone is interested you are welcome to join the project or discuss Museum related articles on the Project Talk Page.&mdash; Rod talk 14:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is also List of museums in the East Riding of Yorkshire. Keith D (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've gone through the West Yorks section, adding ELs to those places which only have a red link so far, and adding a few extra, as a start. PamD (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Pam & Keith sorry I missed the East Riding.&mdash; Rod talk 15:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And have added ELs for South Yorks PamD (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Thanks WPYorks ready
This template is now "up and running". It is only intended to be used to encourage interest from editors who have made substantial edits to Yorkshire related articles to join the project (not spamming, please!!). Please, read the documentation for Usage info.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 11:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Top priority articles
The top priority article that have been identified to date and their current ratings are as follows -


 * Bradford - B
 * East Riding of Yorkshire - B
 * Henry Moore - FA - but would be demoted for lack of references if reviewed
 * Kingston upon Hull - B - informal Peer review comments on talk page
 * Leeds - B
 * North Yorkshire - Start
 * Ripon - B
 * Sheffield - FA
 * South Yorkshire - Start
 * Wakefield - Start
 * West Yorkshire - Start
 * William Wilberforce - GA - actively been worked on for FAC
 * York - B
 * Yorkshire - B
 * Yorkshire and the Humber - Start

The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to GA status, also so we can concentrating our efforts on these first. There are a further 83 in the high priority category for us to tackle later on.

Keith D (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Good article criteria, for a quick reminder.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 08:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Just an idea - putting aside the 2 at FA and William Wilberforce which will probably be at FAC in the not too distant future - that gives us 12 articles. These fall nicely into 2 sets of 6 - cities and areas. So how about an improvement drive on the articles, alternating between the cities & areas. If we do one a month then that will take a year to get through them but knowing the amount of time it takes to get an article ready for GA I would think that anything less than a month would not be productive. Though we could cycle round them a couple of times in a year with a fortnight on each. Any thoughts? Keith D (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Or some simultaneous temporary working-groups who will concentrate on the area(s) that they know best? I wouldn't have much to say when it came to South Yorkshire, or Ripon, or Hull, for example. --GuillaumeTell 21:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As we have so few active editors I would think that splitting up would not work too well, but I may be wrong and they are just keeping quiet. Even if we do not know the area there are still things that can be contributed for example getting hold of references for existing material, which is one of the main jobs that is required for the articles in question, verifying existing references support text etc.. Though I would agree that working on areas we know is probably best, if we have the resources, though my feeling is we are tending to be West Yorkshire orientated so working on other areas is inevitable. Also we really need someone with knowledge of an area to steer the article. Keith D (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think both approaches have their merits and I would be willing to contribute either way. I can see that a mixture of the two will probably evolve, with editors making substantial contributions to articles where they feel they know the subject, and "odd jobbing" on others. I would like to try the article of the month approach and also retain the top priority list in a prominent place for collaborations to develop around the listed articles.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 11:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, as to the number of active editors, quite a lot of work has recently been done on quite a few articles relating to York (my primary area of interest) by a fair number of different editors, and there are others who clearly have various York articles on their watchlists and rvv before I can do it. Probably not all of these are Project members, either.  I could fairly easily draw up a list and contact them individually to see what interest there might be in collaborating on mounting a push on the York article, if that seems like a good idea. GuillaumeTell 14:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I was referring to project members when I made the comments. It would be good if you could get others interested in the project or in improving a specific article. The York article is one of our top priority ones and there are a lot of related articles that people could work on if they feel that they want to stay local. Keith D (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Does Yorkshire exist?
I have raised this issue at Talk:Yorkshire


 * Does Yorkshire exist? if so, where exactly?

If not


 * When did it start and end and where was it?

I know this is a hot potato, cat among the pigeons, sleeping dog, elephant in the room issue, to use a few hackneyed terms.

Though it may not trouble us most of the time there are occasions when, because of encyclopedic requirements, we need to be specific.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Way forward?
If we are to make progress with getting the Yorkshire flagship article up to WP:FA status then we need to discuss the way forward. Some serious thought has gone into how improvements can be made but more participation is needed. I think we may be in a unique position in that the name of the article, Yorkshire is the name of a place and a culture and cultural region. How should these be distinguished in article titles so they do not conflict with WP:PLACE naming conventions?--Harkey Lodger (talk) 11:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Wetherby
Hello folks,

Wetherby is in need of a little TLC. Thought I'd give you guys the heads-up! --Jza84 | Talk  23:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Lealholm
Lealholm is currently on hold for a GA review, comments are on the talk page. Any one chip in on this one as the creator appears not to be around at the moment. Keith D (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added a "Governance" section. PamD (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review for Last of the Summer Wine
I'd be grateful if some editors would be willing to give me some feedback on Last of the Summer Wine. I still feel it is almost at FA but the editors who tipped the balance to oppose in the last FAC refused to elaborate on what they thought was wrong with the article beyond some vague and cursory comments. I've opened a peer review request at Peer review/Last of the Summer Wine/archive3‎ if anyone is willing to review the article. Thanks and cheers! Redfarmer (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What do we think about this?
I'm a little concerned about this. What do you guys think? --Jza84 | Talk  13:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There are two issues:
 * (a) adding ", North Yorkshire": I can see the logic here, to distinguish from Canada - see the edit summary for the move which says "(moved Scarborough (borough) to Scarborough, North Yorkshire (borough and district): to more clearly disambiguate from Scarborough, Ontario which can be described as a 'disctrict' or perhaps even 'borough' of the City of Toronto)". I'm not sure what the MOS has to say where we need both a geog and a non-geog disambiguator for the same title! "Scarborough (borough, North Yorkshire)"? "Scarborough (borough), North Yorkshire"?  The borough isn't called "Scarborough, North Yorkshire", so I think the current version format is wrong.  It would be different if "Scarborough" had a primary meaning (preferably on our patch!), like "York", but it hasn't been established that way.
 * (b) "(borough and district)" - no, never! Needs to revert to borough, surely. PamD (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The thing is, the original Scarborough (borough) page is just a redirect page to a more complex title! The user didn't make this a dab page. A dablink to the Canadian article at the top of Scarborough (borough) would have sufficed IMHO. --Jza84 | Talk  20:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with User:Jza84. The simpler the better.--Harkey (talk) 16:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not "the original Scarborough (borough) page" that's the redirect: the original page has been moved to the new title of Scarborough, North Yorkshire (borough and district), and a redirect from the old title has been created accordingly. I can see a sort of logic for claiming that if "Scarborough" is a dab page (as it is), then "Scarborough (borough)" has to be one too, if there is another claimant to that title.  But as there seems not to be, I agree that undoing the move and adding a hatnote pointing to the Canadian place is more appropriate for now! PamD (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been WP:BOLD and moved it back, amending various hatnotes to make everything as clear as possible. There's no other article wanting the title "Scarborough (borough)", so I don't believe our article needs to move away from that title. PamD (talk) 16:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Scarborough - continued - CFD
Oh dear, it's getting messier. See Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_June_12 and Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_June_12 at WP:CFD. Should categories be associated with the Yorkshire Project watchlist, so that we spot this kind of thing? PamD (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, to keeping an eye on the categories. I'm not sure how.--Harkey (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You can add the project template to the talk page and set the Class parameter to Category if you want to track changes, this will show changes to the actual category page not the list of articles using that category. Though the watchlist is out of date at the moment, I left a note asking for it to be regenerated at the start of the month but has not been done as yet.Keith D (talk) 23:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've made this suggestion:

"*The Scarborough district title is an official name for a UK administrative district and North Yorkshire is the geographical location of the district so maybe consider Category:People from Scarborough (district), North Yorkshire." --- any comments?--Harkey (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Should we go with "borough" rather than "district", as in the page name? PamD (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, my mistake, I was thinking of Ryedale District etc.. I've changed it on the Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_June_12 page. Maybe others could join in there, please--Harkey (talk) 18:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This CFD was closed as rename with comment that a new CFD be raised to change it again as per suggestion. If you want to raise a new CDF then we can all chime in again. Keith D (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Controvertial
Hello team,

I'd like to remove the term "controvertial" from the bulk of the articles in the following navigation template. My rationale being that we shouldn't dictate to our readers what is controvertial and what isn't - the facts should speak for themselves and the reader should make their own decision.

HS LL in Yorkshire

The term keeps being restored by User:Yorkshirian (again with his abusive summaries) so I'd like some feedback please. --Jza84 | Talk  19:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no need for the mention of "controversial" as that is in eyes of the reader and we should have a neutral point of view over this. Keith D (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Every mention of the act does not need to be prefixed with this word. MRSC • Talk 21:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The reader can decide for him/herself what is or is not controversial. --Harkey (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Just the facts will do. Amazing how few of these sheriffs are notable in any other way! PamD (talk) 07:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

On a separate matter, I'm not entirely sure HS LL in Yorkshire needs to exist, given we have Lord Lieutenancies and High Shrievalties. It appears to be a duplication. MRSC • Talk 09:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I thought as much. I've made Yorkshirian aware of this breif discussion. If there's any controversy surrounding the act that's probably best for the main LGA72 article IMO. I'm also inclined for this navigation template to go too - North, West, South and East Yorkshire aren't strictly modern "subdivisions" of Yorkshire which the template seems to suggest. --Jza84 | Talk  11:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Or could perhaps be merged in Yorkshire? MRSC • Talk 14:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree that the template is not necessary - all the information is included in the Lord Lieutenancies and High Shrievalties templates and I see no need for anyone to navigate around specifically Yorkshire titles. It would be more appropriate to have a sentence in each relevant article saying "As a ceremonial county, West Yorkshire has a Lord Lieutenant and a High Sheriff." etc. ... in fact that sentence is already there in West Yorkshire: "Although the county council was abolished, West Yorkshire continues to form a metropolitan and ceremonial county with a Lord Lieutenant of West Yorkshire and a High Sheriff.", with links.  Seems all that's needed, ensuring perhaps that the link for each title has a link to what can be seen as the successor/predecessor title (the Lord Lieutenant of West Yorkshire page has a link to the West Riding title, but only because the first holder of the new title had held the old one - perhaps needs to be specifically mentioned in text, or a See Also with a comment). PamD (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Support deletion. The obvious thing to do (for a bear of little brain, like me!) is look up High Sheriff then follow through with the county link in the template at the foot of the page, or is that too simple? :-)--Harkey (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for the input. I've nominated here. MRSC • Talk 17:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Lealholm
I have been contacted by a GA reviewer for the article and have copied their request here to get some input from others who may know more about the area. Can anyone help out to achieve GA for this article? Keith D (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! The article Lealholm has been sitting in WP:GAN for quite a while and there are still some concerns from editors that need to be addressed to get to GA status. Since the article is so close to earning GA status, I don't want to simply fail it because a few items have been left unaddressed. From the comments of reviewers it appears that the article still fails WP:GACR for the following reasons:
 * Economy, Demography, and Education sections are a bit light. I personally don't have much of a problem with the way they are, but if there's no more information, then that's just the way it is. However, I don't want the article's GA status to be reverted on reassessment because a single editor thought that there wasn't enough information.
 * The Culture section still seems to be primarily OR. I don't have the main source (the Lealholm Farm Produce and Horticultural Society Schedule of Prizes offered for Competition at their eighty seventh annual exhibition and sports) but judging by the title, it doesn't seem like it contains all the information provided in the culture section. Further, the section itself isn't too terribly well-written (such as providing the time for the events... not clear why that information is important?) and uses imprecise terms like "popular". What does popular mean? Does the entire town show up? Etc.

I would go-ahead and take the initiative to fix things to get to GA status, but I'm afraid that would disqualify me as an objective reviewer if I just made changes and then passed the article! Thanks for your help. Best, epicAdam (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Clean-up listing
A clean-up listing is available here which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis, but it is based on the latest database dump so may not be totally current. Hope it will help to reduce the number of the project's articles tagged for clean-up. Keith D (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
 * The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
 * The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
 * A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot  ( Disable )  21:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Question
How notable is Bayford & Co? Simply south (talk) 15:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Football in Yorkshire
I've toned down some of the breaches of WP:PLACE that I've found in this article, but I'd like to do one of three things with this page:

a) split this article into the four contemporary counties. b) delete the article outright as a forking for "traditional counties" that's been around this area of Wikipedia. c) keep the article, but remove the flowery stuff like "Yorkshire football families" and write the article from a historic perspective.

What do you guys think? --Jza84 | Talk  23:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd disagree with forking it into the traditional counties because of the different county FAs. The West Riding County FA covers West Yorkshire as well as parts of North Yorkshire. Also the boundaries of Yorkshire have changed anyway over time. This deals with the past as well as the present. Peanut4 (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The article should remain as a unit, why break it up into sub-components? The boundaries of Yorkshire and its sub-components like other areas has changed over time but that does not mean that we need to break everything up into individual bits and I would not class it as forking for "Traditional counties" Keith D (talk) 00:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Okie dokie. That's fine. Glad I tested the waters first then in this case! I think some of the content needs to better reflect real-world practice then if we're to keep this as well as tackle the notion of "Yorkshire famillies" (i.e. famillies from Yorkshire - a big difference). --Jza84 | Talk  00:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You are going to have to explain that one what is the difference - "Yorkshire famillies" and "famillies from Yorkshire" are the same thing. Keith D (talk) 01:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't make sense, and puts an emphasis of forced identity upon those individuals, e.g. "there are many great England famillies" vs. "there are many great famillies from England". What exactly is a "Yorkshire family" anyway? Is it birth-right, parentage, self-identification, geneaology, race? In addition to the bad use of language, I'm never comfortable with editors using descriptions of identities for people who may not feel that way - it just makes for a worse encyclopedia. --Jza84 | Talk  01:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like this article was the work of one of User:Yorkshirian's sockpuppets (no surpise there), namely User:ForeverWhiteRose. There are many, many more. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  19:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

River Rivelin and Rivelin Valley
Hi All.

I came across the above two articles, and felt that they dealt with essentially the same subject matter, and with a lot of overlap. I have proposed a merge. Perhaps anyone with any feelings on the matter can raise their issues in the discussion.

(x-posted at WP:Sheff).  L.J.Skinner wot 19:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject notification bot
Copied here from an original posting by B. Wolterding. Do people think that this would be of use?

There is currently a proposal for a bot that would notify WikiProjects when their articles have entered certain workflows, e.g. when they are nominated for deletion or for Good article reassessment.

The question is whether a relevant number of wikiprojects would be interested in using such a bot. You can find details of the functionality, and leave your comments, at the bot request page.

Keith D (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Saddleworth Moor
Hello folks,

For rather horrific reasons, Saddleworth Moor is in the news at the moment and so, as this will get a bit of a visitor spike, I wondered if you good folks would be willing and able to do a quick improvement drive to the article for the benefit of our readers? --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  19:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi James, how about a map for the article? Keith D (talk) 23:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

In Text ex-links
What is the policy on articles having loads of in text external links to the external website Geograph like this scattered throughout the article, as with the A19 essay / road trip article. Is it considered Ok, Useful, wrong, or spam (without going into umpteen different policy docs to get an answer) Asking here as a WikiProject Yorkshire area Article. - BulldozerD11 (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The summary of wikipedia's policy on external links (WP:EL) is that "adding external links to an article can be a service to the reader, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article". In this case, there does not need to be a link to so many photographs, it clutters the article and most aren't really very relevant. Especially since so many of them are from geograph. Images on geograph are allowed on wikipedia under a creative commons licence, so it would be best to upload a few choice images and weave them into the article. Then the mid-prose external links can be got rid of. Nev1 (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reply Nev1, as on looking at users edit history they appear to be dropping links in to other articles. The fact that some of it read badly drew my eye to them, but did not want to unilaterally just start deleting, as was unsure as to policy and reverts a sledge hammer, were not just one authors photos so probably good faith edits. ( Im leaving them for now then as articles poor any way) as not vandalism or spam, one to look at when got time. - BulldozerD11 (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to expand on Nev1 - the uploading of Geograph images is best done directly to Commons rather than done here so they can be used on all wiki projects. Keith D (talk) 21:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with Nev1 and Keith D too. I would add that I've seen geograph used as a reference too, and that should be avoided as it is an open source website, and is not deemed reliable. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  23:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yorkshire Day
Happy Yorkshire Day everyone!

Fly your flags high and proud!

 L.J.Skinner wot 23:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Adel: dab page or redirect to German nobility?
A long-established disambiguation page at Adel was recently moved to Adel (disambiguation), and Adel was made into a redirect to German nobility. The redirect has been amended to point to the dab page, and a "Request to move" has been made, to move the dab page back to the title "Adel". Discussion is at Talk:Adel_(disambiguation). Wikipedians interested in the parish north of Leeds might wish to comment. PamD (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That one was resolved - although I'd listed it under "potentially controversial moves", an admin made the move back to the status quo quite soon after I'd listed it. PamD (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Transport in (which) Leeds
There's a discussion at Talk:Transport in Leeds as to whether the article should be about the city or the met district. You might like to join in. PamD (talk) 16:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Literary interests
Do we have anyone on project with Literary interests and Biography article standards who would be willing to look after a GA nomination? Keith D (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Henry Moore at WP:FAR
Henry Moore has a discussion page at Featured article review/Henry Moore.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize for not using the official notification before. Henry Moore 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.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Briggate
I think the article on Briggate needs reassessing from start class. Secondly, it needs reassessing from low importance- how can it be low importance? Briggate is the main shopping street in Leeds, and in turn the main shopping street in Yorkshire. Not only does it have huge historical important to Leeds, the capital of Yorkshire, but remains a very important street for commercial reasons today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.243.3 (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I would have to disagree that it is higher than low on the importance scale as it is just a street, not as you describe it with a rather POV bias. Mid importance is for things such as small towns or important villages. It is certainly lower than these in importance terms.


 * It may be that is should now be classed as a C-class but that class has only recently been introduced and articles have not been regraded as a result of that introduction, mainly because we are still in the process of tagging articles. It certainly does not get any where near a B-class, which was the next category up from Start-class when the article was graded. The reason for this is the article contains far too much in terms of lists, and there are only a handful of references which need formatting to use Cite templates or information adding to them. Keith D (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Organisations Headquartered in Yorkshire
The project banner has been added to AfPP, but this seems to be a national organisation which happens to have its HQ in Harrogate. Do we want to cover such articles? I wouldn't expect WikiProject London to include every organisation whose HQ is down there! Rather than just delete the banner I thought I'd raise the question here for discussion. PamD (talk) 08:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Pam I added it on the rational that its an organisation with a significant presence in Harrogate, and they are responsible for organising conferences which bring large numbers of people to Harrogate & thus Yorkshire. Thus it falls with in the scope of the project. Articles that have a relavence to Yorkshire, are then brought to the attention of more editors and monitored for vandalism (in this example I linked it to Harrogate, the conference center and added it to the 1 link List of Companies in Harrogate, which i was trying to populate from its previous pathetic state)
 * This is a Comment and reasoning, to put my take on {WikiProject Yorkshire} tagging for the discussion not a criticism, as before tagging items I do wonder should I or not, and then usually do as if I get it wrong others can swap to a better project or add other relavent ones.
 * Economy and business are poorly looked after, as the main emphasis is on FTSE companies / Household names, with the {WikiProject Companies} not being UK orientated. The Villages and towns appear to have more support with every little hamlet being added with thw line XYZ is a village in ABC (yet far bigger articles on other subjects get AfD on non notable grounds), as company articles tend to read as adverts (often copied from web sites if not self written). The AfPP article has issues to me in the tone of the text but I could not think of an appropriate tag to add (and if it was a Commercial organisation would probably have added one). Thats My 2pence for the Discusion, Cheers --BulldozerD11 (talk) 11:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

(Extra Comment) Above comment was before seeing the recent edits to the page. - --BulldozerD11 (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I cannot see the harm in having it tagged as it is related to Yorkshire and is in one of our categories. It would have been tagged if a bot had run through categories tagging articles for the project. I probably would have tagged it as well as it relates to Harrogate. As with all of these we have to make a judgement call but at the end of the day the more people policing an article the less vandalism will stay in it. As for improving it as a project that is another matter and it will come low down on the priorities along will the small villages.


 * On the articles for villages, at the moment they are assumed notable, though there is a discussion on removing this automatic notability for settlements. If this goes ahead then I can see whole areas of North & East Yorkshire having no articles at all, especially as I have come across 2 of our civil parishes enumerated with just 3 in the 2001 census! Keith D (talk) 12:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, just wanted a bit of discussion. PamD (talk) 12:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK Keith, that was my take, that if would get a low priority rating (Seperate discussion subject probably) but in scope. Editing of article has taken a step backwards in some ways as a result, but long term should lead to a better article. (Move for Deletion) but Quashed by Pams swinging edit to remove copy-vio. -BulldozerD11 (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

West Yorkshire categories
Arising from the above discussion on AfPP I looked at categories for companies in Yorkshire and found that Category:Companies based in West Yorkshire has 3 subcategories, for Bradford, Kirklees and Leeds, and one article, Findel plc, which is not in any of those categories. It's in Burley in Wharfedale, ie in the City of Bradford met district but outside Bradford. This relates to discussion at Talk:Transport in Leeds about whether we mean the city or the met district, both for the article and for categories. The subdivisions of Category:Railway stations in West Yorkshire appear to be by met district. Maybe we need a systematic approach to categories which are for Leeds, Bradford, Wakefield, Calderdale and Kirklees, with scope notes on the category pages which say "This category relates to the City of Bradford metropolitan district.", to clarify?

Presumably there are similar problems in South Yorkshire! PamD (talk) 12:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Companies and categories are an area I'm working on as alot of articles are by Nich interest groups, and often they are not Categorised as a company at all even though its a business (company) related article. The other part is so many companies are founded in one place and grow, or merge then the registered office or HQ is often London by default. I've categorised a lot locally for Yorkshire, Lincs, Derbyshire Sheffield & Leeds. But older firms in some cases have a defunct companies cat added, which I've not added as how many levels of cats do you go for. In my opinion Other than Leeds & Sheffield the number of entries is too small really to justify one. But categories like Harrogate and Bradford were they existed already, I'v added any companies found to them. The other issue is whether a particular article is about a Company, The Founder (Bio) or a product or specific Site. If we all agreed it would be too simple (Theres that many different guidance policies out there, do we get to boged down in details or spend time growing articles) As what may be consensus for this project will not be for another. The Discusions of the definitions of Areas will go on for ever due to long standing politics and the history of boundary changes, and the fact that they are not consistent for different purposes, thus can only be used as a broad guide, and needs t flex to suit as cutting articles from a logical grouping cause it does not fit the defined administrative boundary's serves no real purpose. If its connected put it in both groups must be better than none. life's Not Black & White. -BulldozerD11 (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Genuki link templates
GENUKI provides a collection of historical and genealogical resources for the ancient parishes of Yorkshire (and for the rest of the country, though not always as thoroughly), and is a useful "External link" for any place in Yorkshire, whether or not the place is an ancient parish itself. I've created a series of four templates to make it easier to make these links: Genukiery, Genukinry, Genukiwry and Genukiary for the East Riding, North Riding, West Riding and Ainsty of York. (The codes ERY, NRY, WRY and ARY are the standard county codes used by genealogists, and in Genuki URLs, but it seemed easier to type to leave them in lower case). So if you're editing a page on any settlement in Yorkshire, you might care to add an External link using the appropriate template. There's documentation on the template pages about using them. PamD (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Yorkshire
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Capital of Yorkshire and the Humber
I have nominated an article on Capital of Yorkshire and the Humber for deletion as I believe it constitutes original research. Although the article has not been tagged by this project, it makes sense to let people here know. All input is welcome. Nev1 (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting us know. Keith D (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello there!


 * Simillar thing: I've nominated List of collieries in Yorkshire 1984-present with dates of closure for deletion here. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  18:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Missing coordinates
Many South Yorkshire articles are missing geographic coordinates; you can find an up-to-date list of them in the category Category:South Yorkshire articles missing geocoordinate data. A list of North Yorkshire articles missing geo-coordinates can also be found using this CatScan search (note that CatScan can be rather slow, taking up to a minute to produce any results).

By providing these articles with geographic coordinates, you can help other editors locate them on maps and in geographic information systems, and help readers find the articles when using geographic search systems such as Google Maps or location-aware GPS phone browsers.

These articles are currently marked with coord missing templates, which need replacing with filled in coord templates containing their latitude/longitude data. You can find out how to do this at the Geocoding how-to for WikiProject members. -- The Anome (talk) 14:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks would be good if you could create the categories for North Yorkshire, West Yorkshire & the East Riding of Yorkshire as per South Yorkshire. It would also be good if people could apply the appropriate infoboxes at the same time rather than just replace the template with the Coord or other co-ordinate template. Keith D (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * We now have missing coordinate articles in subcategories, as follows:


 *  articles in Category:North Yorkshire articles missing geocoordinate data
 *  articles in Category:East Riding of Yorkshire articles missing geocoordinate data
 *  articles in Category:South Yorkshire articles missing geocoordinate data
 *  articles in Category:West Yorkshire articles missing geocoordinate data


 * Coords are useful for making the article appear on Google Maps & many other mapping services; and they allow our users to click through to see the article subject location on a map. There's a short guide to on how to add geocodes to articles ... it really is very easy to do. I hope you'll take some time to ensure that North Carolina is as well represented as it can be on wikipedia by fixing up the listed articles. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hebden GA
The Hebden, North Yorkshire article has been placed on hold in its GA review. Is there anybody who can help sort out the problems raised, mainly on the references front? Keith D (talk) 11:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Historical Ridings in historical articles
Does this project have any strong views on how to describe the location of a Yorkshire railway station that closed before 1974? For example, when the station existed, it was in the West Riding of Yorkshire. The geographical location of that station is now in North Yorkshire. The opening sentence of that station's article could read "XXX railway station once served the village of XX in North Yorkshire, England". Or "XXX railway station once served the village of XX in the West Riding of Yorkshire, England". Or some other form of words. I have no strong feelings on the subject. Is there (or should there be) any project recommendations for this? --Dr Greg (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi I assume the question came from my change to one of the articles. The problem with historical references is that they change over time so what point in time do we use for the information. Station articles appear to use the current day county/authority rather than the one in historical context which is what I have been applying. If there is general consensus that we should use a historic reference then we would need to be consistent across all disused station articles not just the Yorkshire ones. We would also need to define what point in time the reference was to, date of opening, date of closing or other. Keith D (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course, in the case of a station that was always within the West Riding throughout its existence, no ambiguity arises. In fact, historical references don't change over time, it's "present-day" references that are liable to change (if a new county were created, all references saying something is (now) in the old county would suddenly be wrong, but a reference saying something was historically in the old county would still be correct)! But I agree this isn't just a Yorkshire issue. I recall there are precedents for saying, e.g. "Fred Dibnah was born in Bolton, Lancashire" even though Bolton is now in Greater Manchester. But of course, a date of birth can be pinpointed in time. --Dr Greg (talk) 13:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. If anything, I believe we need to make this clearer in the WP:PLACE naming convention. It kind of mentions this, but in vauge terms. People's place of birth isn't dealt with adequately IMHO. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  13:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Having refreshed my memory of what WP:PLACE actually says, I suppose the policy-recommended solution would be something like "XXX railway station once served the village of XXX in North Yorkshire, England (which was in the West Riding of Yorkshire at the time)." That sounds pretty ugly and I think I'd prefer a simple "North Yorkshire" to that. "XXX railway station once served the village of XXX in the former West Riding of Yorkshire (now in North Yorkshire), England" seems slightly better but the wording of WP:PLACE seems to deprecate such usage. Part of the confusion is that the village of XXX still is in North Yorkshire whereas the station only ever was in the West Riding and there's no simple sentence construction that can reconcile these two things. --Dr Greg (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if Wikipedia was a democracy, I'd vote for "XXX railway station once served the village of XXX in the former West Riding of Yorkshire (now North Yorkshire), England". However, as long as we work in the spirit of WP:PLACE we shouldn't upset any of our readers and/or editors. :S --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  19:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of WikiProject Yorkshire
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you.  MBisanz  talk 06:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Copied here from my talk page, for as more relevant here. (Was created by me originally, as typing WikiProject in search box did not bring the project up, but other similar redirects did exist). It would appear that cross namespace redirects are not the done thing. Any thoughts as to if its worth the battle (Loss of Editing Time spent on none content creation) to retain. As this sort of things one of the ones were WP polices, can get lined up on both sides of argument. - BulldozerD11 (talk) 12:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Langstrothdale
Can anyone validate this change to the Langstrothdale article? Keith D (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, according to the OS Map, Langstrothdale is the name down to Buckden, when it becomes Wharfedale. As far as I am concerned, Upper Wharfedale is not a fully-defined term, and seems to be used variously to describe Wharfedale above Bolton Abbey, and Wharfedale above Grassington. The secondary school in Grassington is called "Upper Wharfedale". Langcliffe (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

List of people from Yorkshire
I'm toying with the idea of removing all the unsourced additions (about 99% of the content) and then noming this list for deletion. I'd then like to start over with fresh pages by ceremonial county (adhering to WP:PLACE and bringing the region inline with the rest of England). However, it's been with us since 2004, and so it must hold some affection. Can anybody convince me otherwise? --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  17:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)