Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Yorkshire/Archive 3

West and South Yorkshire
Hello WP:Yorkshire!

I've been adding some tables and maps of the modern and former district boundaries to each of the metropolitan county articles, including West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire. This based on the one at Greater Manchester which helped it towards WP:FA. I'm hoping to achieve a bit of consistency across the six articles too through these additions.

That said, I'm a little horrified by the state of Yorkshire's two metropolitan county articles - two " Top " priority articles for this project. I've done my best to expand South Yorkshire outwards a little borrowing some generic stuff about the LGA72 and metropolitan counties from Greater Manchester, but really these two pages need TLC from members of this project. The bare bones for an FA-achieving layout, as well as generic bites about governance, structure and so on, could easily be pinched from Greater Manchester (which has all the references and page numbers listed). Hope that helps, --Jza84 | Talk  22:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to merge the article City of Leeds into the article Leeds
After months (years) of seemingly fruitless discussion I have decided to be bold and propose the merger of these two articles. Any input at Talk:Leeds would be appreciated. Thanks, —Jeremy (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I would have said that the general consensus was against such a move. Mtaylor848 (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's now safe to come back into the water - a consensus seemed to evolve, and merging is going ahead. Please come back and edit constructively. PamD (talk) 10:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I see the stuck record is still hectoring away on the talk page. I for one will wait until the merge has happened before I risk accusations of lacking common sense blah blah blah.  almost - instinct 12:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts
Article alerts are now available at WikiProject Yorkshire/Article alerts. ArticleAlertbot takes care of the updates which are done on a daily basis. Currently there are a few alerts for the project and it will enable people to keep an eye on deletions, prods, GA, FA, PR and DYK actions on the projects articles. Keith D (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * For more information see this signpost article. Keith D (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Scientists with Yorkshire connections (for info)
Category:Scientists with Yorkshire connections, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Black Falcon (Talk) 21:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Johnbibby (talk) 09:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. &mdash; Delievered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 07:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

House of York problem
Has anyone got information that would clear up the following query raised on the talk page of the House of York article?

There is a conflict between this article which states:

"The House of York was descended from Edmund of Langley, 1st Duke of York, the fourth surviving son of Edward III."

and the article House of Lancaster, which states:

"...the descendants of Edward III's second surviving son, Lionel of Antwerp, 1st Duke of Clarence...eventually became the rival House of York."

--Ttownfeen (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Keith D (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Both are correct according to the Oxford History of Britain. Edmund Duke of York (4th son of Edward III) had a son Richard who married Anne Mortimer the great granddaughter of Lionel Duke of Clarence (2nd surviving son of Edward III). The House of York are the descendants of this line. I'll post on the House of York page. --Kaly99 (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick response. Keith D (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the  parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:53, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Moving Category People from Sheffleld to district sub cats
Thought id raise this here, An editor is moving people from the Category:People from Sheffield to a whole host of district related categories which are then sub-cats of Sheffield (Districts). This appears as over categorisation as most people in the wider world will not look for people in a obscure district category. Whats the opinion on this extra level and is there any real merit to it. the issue has be noted on the Sheffield project talk page but I raise it to the wider area before it spreads too far (Cheshire and Lancashire have already been done ! from users talk page messages). - BulldozerD11 (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See Category:People from West Yorkshire for more small categories (including a batch of recently-created ones filing under "P" for "People"). There is now Category:People from Leeds alongside Category:People from Harehills and Category:People from Otley (all three being children of Category:People from Leeds (district), which is not itself a child of Category:People from West Yorkshire ... well, it wasn't, but I have just now edited the 5 "district" categories so that they all appear at the start of Category:People from West Yorkshire).  Given that an article for a place, such as Harehills or Otley, can contain its own section about "People from ...", we need to consider what's the most useful set of categories for users of Wikipedia: 5 subdivisions of "People from West Yorkshire" into the 5 current districts? An agreed set of "places" which are significant enough to have a "people from" category (might include Otley but not Harehills)?. The current set of very narrow categories?  This is, in part, one of the discussions needed in connection with the recent "Leeds = City of Leeds" merge. PamD (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think on this one we need to have some sort of global view for at least England rather than deciding on a county by county basis what should be done. It will probably depend on the structure of the county as well, North, South & West Yorkshire are split into districts which are natural divisions but East Riding is not split up into districts. Places are useful to split up and categorise people but how far do we go? We need to have some sort of defined limit or we will end up will categories for every hamlet which may only have one entry in it. It is probably more difficult for cities where the areas of the city are often not clearly defined, and those outside of the place probably have no clear grasp of the geography. We could always use wards rather than the ill defined areas, but no doubt that has its problems. Which ever way we do it there needs to be some clearly defined way of doing it so that people can find people where they expect them to be.


 * I think these categories (People from X) are useful but I have 2 problems with these types of classification that may or may not be relevant to deciding which way to go. The first is do we apply the current geography to historical people and place them in the current county or do we place them in the county that existed at the time. This may be very relevant as there is a change to some of the counties/authorities from midnight. The second is at what point do we put them as a Person from X, is it the place of birth or some other point in their lives and do we end up with several entries for those that moved around.


 * Sorry if this is a bit confusing but just a few thoughts to think about when deciding the way forward. Keith D (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Watchlist update problem
Just to let people know that there is a problem with re-generating the watchlist at the moment. The script gives a server error and I do not know if it is a general server problem or a limit on the number of items tagged. The originator is on a wikibreak at the moment but I have left a question for them to look at when they return. In the mean time articles tagged since 28 March have not been added to the watchlist. Hopefully normal service will be resumed ASAP. Keith D (talk) 11:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have managed to generate the watchlist in smaller chunks so we are back in action again for the moment. Keith D (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Redcar
Hey.

Redcar is a mess of an article. I began to rewrite it a few months back at User:Computerjoe/Redcar but gave up.

Woulda anyone be willing to assist in re-writing it? Computerjoe 's talk 11:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Local chapter for the Wikimedia Foundation
AndrewRT(Talk) 21:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

York
A couple of days ago, User:Brickie nominated the York article over at WP:GAN. Casting an eye quickly over it, it looks ok, fairly well developed, but still needs work before it would pass a GA review. There are some tags that need addressing, the demography section needs to be greatly expanded, the external links need trimming, and it needs a general clean up. I'm mentioning it here because Brickie has only made 9 edits to the article, and hopefully someone here might be able to step in. Nev1 (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Leeds Project
I would favour a seperate Leeds project, as is the case with Sheffield, whereby such pages fit into both projects. There are hundreds of Leeds related pages and many editors primarily edit these pages. The size of the Yorkshire project makes it hard to follow specifically Leeds based articles. Probably 95% of my edits fall within this category and I would prefer a more focused project. Anyone agree? Mtaylor848 (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Grinton church
Grinton St Andrews, is it known as the "Cathedral of the Dale" or the "Cathedral of the Dales"? There seem to be contrary fairly reliable sources for either. NtheP (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've always thought it was "Cathedral of the Dales", plural, as here.--Harkey (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Cricket
Have we any one interested in cricket around as we are well into season and there appears to be no article for Yorkshire County Cricket Club 2009 season as yet? Keith D (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

York (again)
Please would other editors care to look at the York article. I have done some work on it following the GA review. I would like help with the following, please.


 * From Section 17 (External links) onwards seems to be rather "weighty". Too much of a good thing.
 * Advice on who to include in the York section when I convert the list to prose as this is already a sub list of a List of people from York.

Thank you--Harkey (talk) 09:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a bit of an extreme suggestion, but since there's a list of people from York why not reduce the section in the York article to just a see also link?
 * It saves time and effort writing the section.
 * In an FAC User:Dweller raised the valid point that the section will probably never be comprehensive.
 * It's removing a target for vandals.
 * Articles have been promoted to FA without them (eg: Manchester).
 * It should be possible to integrate any very important figures into the rest of the article so nothing's lost.
 * Just an idea. Nev1 (talk) 11:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I think I'll go with that one.--Harkey (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Although List of people from York would benefit from a revamp/upgrade and some sources - something more akin to what we're doing over at List of people from Greater Manchester (the subpages), with good results. Alphabetisation would help readers too, as it won't use arbitary headings and interpretations of editors. --Jza84 | Talk  00:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason why a sortable table couldn't be used?  almost - instinct 10:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I was thinking that a sortable table might be a solution. Sortable on name and date or surname, given name and date?--Harkey (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a passion for consistency on WP, so for me (and other MOS advocates) it would be nice to adopt a standardised approach on all these lists (but not necessarily the GM version - which was borrowed from elsewhere). But what would we be sorting other than surnames? What a person is famous/notable for usually uses an arbitary description (Isaac Newton famous as a polymath, scientist, theorist, mathematician or something else?), so sorting that would be pretty tactless from an editorial stance AFAICT. Certainly a must has got to be citing our sources though. --Jza84 | Talk  13:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of Alcuin and Ivar the Boneless at the time. I don't suppose anyone called him Mr Boneless. though!! A bit daft of me :-) So, a sources column? or put in name column?--Harkey (talk) 14:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If a sortable table was done well enough then WP might feel inclined to standardise towards it. Not attempting one purely because no one else has managed one would be the opposite of being bold IMO. Maybe the entries could be classified as per the Wikiprojects that have claimed them for their own? I imagine a certain ammount of arguing the toss might follow on ...  almost - instinct 14:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Infobox needed on articles
Just to let members know that the project banner has a flag to request an article have an infobox added to it. If you add "needs-infobox=yes" to the project template then it will flag up that an infobox is required on the article. This will add the article's talk page into Category:Yorkshire articles needing infoboxes which will list those articles needing an infobox. Also when adding an infobox to articles please change the yes to no or remove the parameter from the project template and that of any other project using the flag. Thanks. Keith D (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Sheffield in WP:FAR
nominated Sheffield for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 06:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * How's this going? It would be a shame to see such an important article delisted. Nev1 (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Have been away for a couple of weeks, but looking at the changes in that time it seems like very little has been done to address the main issue of referencing with the article. It is a shame that more people cannot find the time to support articles other than a specific one they are interested in. I would have thought that WikiProject Sheffield would have been rallying to this as it is their top level article. So come on folks how about some action. Keith D (talk) 11:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:SHEFF appears to be dormant. I have gone through the article fixing existing references and trying to find new ones. Any help would be appreciated. —Jeremy (talk) 22:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the efforts much appreciated. Keith D (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

List of windmills in Yorkshire
I've been working on creating lists of windmills for every county in England. Yorkshire's turn has come and accordingly there are three lists as I've split the mills by Ridings. The lists all need expansion. Particularly with respect to the windmills of Beverley, Hull and York. If anyone has a copy of "Tyke Towers" it will probably be useful to expand the list with. Feel free to correct any errors you find. Mjroots (talk) 15:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd have thought listing by current counties would be more appropriate - would then fit into categories like "Structures in West Yorkshire". PamD (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The Yorkshire list is just a link to List of windmills in the East Riding of Yorkshire, List of windmills in the North Riding of Yorkshire, and List of windmills in the West Riding of Yorkshire. Nev1 (talk) 18:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I did make a comment on the List of windmills in the North Riding of Yorkshire article about this as York is included there and really was never part of the North Riding. Would be much better as modern counties and then the categories would fit in correctly with the existing structure. Also the lists can then be added to the appropriate county template. I switched one of the mills, Holgate Windmill, over to North Yorkshire yesterday, before the individual lists existed, but have been reverted out. Keith D (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, per WP:PLACE we use modern administrative units. This doesn't just apply to settlement articles but is used on lists of historic structures such as castles, listed buildings, hill forts, churches, and monastic houses. Nev1 (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I created these per Riding as sources generally list per Riding. The vast majority of mills were gone before they started mucking about with the counties in 1974. See List of windmills in the United Kingdom and particularly List of windmills in London for examples of other mill lists which have been done by former counties, not the modern administative units. York itself may not have been in the North Riding, but is closely associated with it, hence its listing there. Mjroots (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The use of Ridings is in accordance with WP:PLACE which states If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used. As above, the vast majority of mills had gone by 1974, so we can keep with Ridings. Mjroots (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Importance scale
I have (boldly) replaced the importance scale on the assessment page with one adapted from WP:GM in the hope that this will lead to more consistency of rating both within and between projects.Any comments are welcome.--Harkey (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm all for working to wards some inter-project consistency. Although Scheduled Monuments aren't explicitly mentioned in the importance structure, I'd always considered them to be on a par with Grade I listed buildings as they're of national importance. Also, Saltaire is a World Heritage Site so of international importance so should probably be of top importance, possibly high. Nev1 (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, also people and events are not mentioned.--Harkey (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point, how important are, for example, footballers? I think MPs should be mid importance as constituencies are hig importance unless there is a clear reason that they're more important such as having been PM or as famous as someone like Tony Benn. A rule of thumb I use for footballers and other sportsmen is they're low importance unless they achieved national honours. If people are interested in discussing the issue here I could drop WP:GM a line as I'd like to see both projects working from similar importance scales. Nev1 (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the discussion is worth having. Obviously what is important to a local WP will be different from national or international ones, but consistency is desirable.--Harkey (talk) 19:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be sensible, I think, for all of the local WP projects, or at least the UK ones, to share a common importance rating. So far as sportsmen are concerned, I share Nev1's view about low importance unless they've achieved national honours, or they are in some other way nationally important, in which case they ought to be high. The same applies to others like scientists, engineers, and so on, although it's perhaps not always so easy to judge in those cases, especially if they're still alive and working. I was surprised and a little shocked to see that the WP:GM project has tagged Alan Turing as a subject of low importance though, seems a pretty open-and-shut case to me. I guess the issue that really needs to be worked through in cases like that is how important was Turing to Greater Manchester, not nationally or internationally, but then the same could be said for footballers. More questions than answers in my mind right now. I've never been certain whether the scale is intended ro reflect imposrance to the locality, importance more generally, or some mixture of the two. I suspect that it's an as yet to be defined mixture of the two, resulting from the importance scale's geographical rather than wider sociographic roots. How important is Fred Trueman to Yorkshire, for instance? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably as important as Fred Perry is to Cheshire. But, more seriously, I think it would be worth trying to refine our thoughts about importance. Do we mean importance to the project members, as a project effort, or the populace of the locality in general? If the latter, it might be possible to give further examples of what is meant by each category to guide new, and less experienced, editors. Is it really just a way of prioritising the job of editing thousands of articles? Or a mixture of both?--Harkey (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a more fundamental question needs to be asked first; are our projects concerned only with the geographical features of our areas? Should they have a wider remit to include nationally significant events, or internationally important developments? Perhaps how to deal with people will fall out from that wider discussion. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * OK - didn't know about all this. So in response to the above, I've just changed the importance ratings on Talk:Wool Exchange, Bradford from Low to High as it's a Grade 1 building - and we'll see if anyone changes it back or not . . .?--Storye book (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have created a WP:YORKS sandbox so that we can think about more concrete suggestions/examples. I have added two new columns with headings for People and Events. Please feel free to edit and discuss it on the talk page. I'm sure that Jza84 could make a better job of formatting once we have decided on the content. :-), please.--Harkey (talk) 07:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, Harkey Lodger. Please could someone tell me -  on WikiProject Yorkshire/Sandbox is the section "Criteria and examples for places" section currently WP policy? If so, I need to go change a few more ratings for places/buildings under Yorks project, and presumably for Bradford project as well.--Storye book (talk) 10:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No none of this is actually policy, we are just discussing a framework to get some consistency at the moment.
 * On the existing places/buildings I would move villages & civil parishes (and probably wards) to low as we have a large number of these which are not really that important to put at mid and only the important/large ones should be at mid. On stations I would put disused ones at low, we currently have open ones as mid.
 * We also need to cover education establishments, sports teams, media and visitor attractions. Keith D (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Educational establishments would be covered by the existing infrastructure considerations, but an example of each might be useful. So far as wards are concerned, I'm not sure that any wards could be considered any more important than any other, as they're organised in such a way as to contain broadly equal numbers of voters. --Malleus Fatuorum 11:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Suggestion see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Yorkshire/Sandbox.--Harkey (talk) 14:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * (also posted on the sandbox talkpage) A good point about wards. They are small (the ones in Greater Manchester are have a population of ~10,000 but most in Carlisle are ~5,000) but are bigger than some of the smallest villages and civil parishes, for example Dunham Massey has a population of 475. So arguably wards are more important. However, I believe that wards should be of the lowest important to any county project because they are transient (and so should the smallest villages and civil parishes). They undergo frequent boundary changes and usually the only source of information is the local council. Villages and civil parishes can have a history stretching back centuries. On the sandbox talkpage, Harkey has suggested measuring importance of a settlement by the number of wards. As wards are generally of equal size for the sake of voting, this is essentially measuring the importance of a settlement by its population. As a rule of thumb, I agree with this. However, the City of Carlisle has more wards and a smaller population that Stockport, but as it has city status I'd argue that it's more important. The status of a settlement as a town or city should, in my opinion, take precedence over size. Nev1 (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Categories for discussion
It has been suggested that 'Category:Hull' should be renamed to Category:Kingston upon Hull per Kingston upon Hull. Occuli (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Kidson/Kisdon Force
I could do with your expertise here. There's an AfD going on for Kidson Force, on the grounds that it's actually Kisdon Force, also on the River Swale, but I'm not sure if it's a different waterfall or a misspelling of the same one. Do any of the know the answer? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's a misspelling as the ref for Kidson Force talks of Kisdon Force and co-ordinates point to same spot.I can't find another "Kidson" on maps of Swaledale--Harkey (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Arctic Monkeys
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Arctic Monkeys/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)