Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ralphtheclaret (talk | contribs) at 13:07, 6 November 2009 (→Premiership Football Teams in Lancashire). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Unrated Articles

It has come to my attention that there are loads of artciles under our scope that have not yet been rated for their importance. This needs to be delt with. We need to insure that all articles under our scope are rated in importance.

You can help by having a look at this link: Link

As discused eariler we said that all: villages are medium. Hamlets are low Schools are low

We have not yet discused other topics, but I think you can take an educated guess for the others.

If anyone has a problem or needs help rating an article please don't be affraid to write it here and the WP comminuty will help you. Thanks. I am looking forward to our contribtions. 93gregsonl2 (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of other examples in the Importance Scale on the front page. Small-town hero (talk) 01:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a big start for you, and managed to rate loads - will add this to my "things to do list" and will rate/grade everything that is left in that list. Pr3st0n (talk) 05:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, just got it from approx 800 down to 621. Not bad for a couple of hours work :-) Should hopefully have the entire unrated list vanished by the end of the week, and everything will have a rating of some sorts. Pr3st0n (talk) 05:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very good. There may be a Banistar coming your way soon... 93gregsonl2 (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Between us we have Unrated by class is down to 152, unrated by importance is 574 (most of which will be stubs). So overall we have 89.4% of articles assessed. But this is only Lancs articles, the bot to identify Cumbria articles has yet to be run! Having rated 450+ articles in the last week I can categorically (forgive the pun) state we have some really good stuff out there and some real dross! NtheP (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I had noticed a lot of dull articles, many of which were just one-liners; but hey, it all helps towards the greater project I suppose. You say the bot hasn't even started on the Cumbria stuff yet? I had noticed the bot put some "Yorkshire" articles into the Lancs stuff, I wasn't sure whether to remove those or not, but I have made a list (stored on my PC) if you want them vamooshed. 93gregson12, I'd be delighted to gain a barnstar, if you're offering ;-). Ooh, I feel the whip cracking again, back to rating the unrated. Pr3st0n (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it until Wednesday before I put in a bot request to have Cumbria articles tagged -- I'd feel better if someone else could review the category list first so we can keep false posititives to a minimum. There are still decisioons to be made about the scope of this project, particuarly regarding historical boundaries and biographies... Small-town hero (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's sounds fine to me, I'll try and get the current unrated list completed by then, so then it won't be as heart-wrenching and mundane when the Cumbrian articles are added to it. What about football players though? I've noticed a few of those who are currently playing for teams in Lancashire, and yet they are from other parts of the UK and world. Are we still including those in the project, the bot seems to think so. Pr3st0n (talk) 01:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They shouldn't be getting tagged. :S Can you give me a few examples? Small-town hero (talk) 01:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can't remember of the names now, will have to check through my contributions for them, there were a couple of dozen that I came across. Want me to track them down again, and remove the "Lancs & Cumbria" project tag from them? Pr3st0n (talk) 01:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think one of them was a player for Preston North End F.C., who use to play for Celtic too. Pr3st0n (talk) 01:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you could find a few and let me know what they are, that would be great. It would be useful to know why they've been tagged; could be that the article has been miscategorised, or something. The only footballer I've seen tagged myself is Scott Carson, but that was by a user, not a bot. Small-town hero (talk) 01:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article on Ross Wallace was one - I've removed the project tag from it a minute ago. Pr3st0n (talk) 01:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it was tagged by you [1] ??? Small-town hero (talk) 01:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Got me confused as that now. I know I did the importance rating on it, but then came across a few others players too, hence why I asked above! Pr3st0n (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that Scott Carson one too, when I was going through the list that needed doing. Ross Wallace was on the same list page at the time. Are we removing project tags of football players then? Just so I know if I come across any more along the way. Pr3st0n (talk) 02:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know. :) I'm not so sure that biographies are something this project should be focusing on, but that's just my own opinion. We shouldn't be tagging articles like Ross Wallace, though; he's just a footballer who's played for Preston the last year or so. If we tagged every person who has ever played for a Lancashire/Cumbria sports team then they'd probably account for 95% or so of our articles! Small-town hero (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on the sports personality part. Its not just those biographies that I come across either; some for other people in there area are also tagged up. I came across one about an Earl who was born in London, but it had a brief menetion that he stopped in Lancashire for a month, and yet that got tagged, it even has a "bot" thing on it. I just gave it a low importance, and left the thing. Are we keeping those too? Pr3st0n (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These are some of the other biographies that I've come across with the Lancs & Cumbria project tag attached to them by the bot.

Pr3st0n (talk) 02:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

::OK got it down from 152 unrated by class to 0, and down from 574 unrated by importance to 184... not bad huh?! lol Pr3st0n (talk) 04:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As promised, I've completed the task at hand, and on schedule too. What's the next task? Pr3st0n (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regaring the above, articles in Category:Lord-Lieutenants of Lancashire, Category:Deputy Lieutenants of Lancashire and Category:High Sheriffs of Lancashire were tagged for the project. This may or may not have been ideal; if not, I'll exclude the corresponding categories for Cumbria. Frederick Maddison is categorised in Category:Government in Burnley, which is why that article was tagged. Small-town hero (talk) 10:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd leave those categories (or their Cumbrian equivalents in) as they will tag some people whose connection with the county is good. Any rogue ones we can manually remove and record as being out of scope. For example if we had omitted Category:Lord-Lieutenants of Lancashire we would possibly have missed several members of the Stanley family (the Earls of Derby ) who are very involved in the history of Lancashire. I quite agree about missing sportsmen/women out though. NtheP (talk) 13:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much to Pr3st0n and NtheP (and anyone else I haven't noticed) for the huge amount of assessment you've done. You could help the rest of us, from your experience, by adding more examples of article types (e.g. "schools", "hamlets") to the importance scale on the project page, and clarifying any ambiguities in the wording. -- Dr Greg  talk  18:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If anything perhaps some of the geographical features need importance ratings e.g. National Parks should be high, AONB/NNRs Mid. NtheP (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok people the Cumbria tagging bot has run and there are now 374457 unassessed articles by quality and 10471147 (the bot was tagging faster than I could assess) unassessed by importance (thats a lot of stubs out there) so can we get cracking on these. NtheP (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No new Featured Articles or Lists unfortunately, but we do have an additional five Good Articles. :) Small-town hero (talk) 01:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Down to 262 unrated by quality (now I've sussed out AWB - it's quicker to assess) and 954 by importance. As these are Cumbrian articles not surprisingly lots of the articles assessed are mountains/fells in the Lake District! We lost one GA as it had been hoaxed to that level by an anonymous editor. NtheP (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All articles now assessed for quality and about 620 to do for importance (any help appreciated hint, hint). NtheP (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's great work you've done, NtheP. If you have any experience to share with the rest of us over how to assess importance, that would be appreciated. E.g. how to assess the importance of hills, mountains, lakes and rivers, which is particularly relevant to Cumbria. As I'm also a member of WP:WikiProject UK Railways, I've made a start assessing Cumbrian railway stations, killing two birds with one stone, as some of these have never been assessed for the other project and many stub-class articles, in my view, are now ready to promote to start-class. But my time is limited and it may take me awhile. So anyone else who is assessing can leave railway articles for me to do. (Let's not leave it all for NtheP to do; he/she's done enough already!) -- Dr Greg  talk  16:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All the geographical features I assessed as low unless they are exceptional for some reason e.g. Scafell Pike as highest peak in England, or are NNR, SSSIs. Personally I think it's best to underrate rather than overrate. To me the purpose of improtance grading is to set priorities for the project and too many high/mid rated articles to start off with is diffcult to deal with. Dealing with those that are definitely top/high first and then re-review all the mids to see if any are more high than mid ans should take priority over the other mids.
The same goes for quality. To me the assessment criteria are pretty specific and I haven't necessarily followed what other projects have done. Most notably BIHills who seem to have assessed all the Lakeland hills as B classs when to me the articles are mostly C or start because in most cases they lack references or contain weasel words. NtheP (talk) 16:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC) PS It's he :-)[reply]

Premiership Football Teams in Lancashire

Personally, I think all of the premiership football teams should be hih importance (I know it is only Blackburn and Burnly). What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93gregsonl2 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure; Premier League status comes and goes, and it doesn't take into account a club's history. If this were the Greater Manchester project, would you consider Manchester United and Wigan to be of equal importance? Small-town hero (talk) 01:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. But they are now nationaly know football clubs and I think for the time being at least that they should be of a high importance as I would think such articles may get a big 'hit count' as many football supporters will have a look at Burnely FC and Blackburn FC articles, whilst they are in the Premier League and we should try to get those articles up to GA.93gregsonl2 (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hows about learning how to spell Burnley for a start and what exactly do you mean by only Blackburn and Burnley - two clubs who were founder members of the Football League...its B U R N L E Y by the way and Blackburn Rovers not Blackburn FC.(Ralphtheclaret (talk) 11:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC));[reply]

Ok carm down. 93gregsonl2 (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That comment was unnecessary and uncalled for, and based on your above usage of grammar and punctuation you're hardly one to be criticising others. If you can't be civil or constructive when posting here, then kindly don't bother. Small-town hero (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is an absolutely priceless comment here are some gems from above "hih importamnce" "only Blackburn and Burnly" "if this were" "nationaly" for heavens sake football existed before the Premier League you know...your comment is unbelievable - the main problem with wikipedia is that half the football content is factually incorrect added to pages by people with an axe to grind. (Ralphtheclaret (talk)); —Preceding undated comment added 09:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Stop making a big deal of this and if you think Wikipedia articles are factually incorrect then you can either edit them, plus include references or you can leave Wikipedia. Simple. Also please remember to remain civil or you may find yourself being blocked from editing Wikipedia.93gregsonl2 (talk) 15:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ralphtheclaret, if you have nothing constructive to say and would rather make snarky comments on other people's grammar kindly bugger off. Nev1 (talk) 15:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try a constructive comment for you, have a look at Rawtenstall Athletic F.C. - clue the entire content is fictionalised if wikipedia is to be taken seriously someone somewhere ought to be monitoring the sources (Ralphtheclaret (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC));[reply]

You probably know more about this football club than anyone here, so feel free to take the initiative. I see you've made some edits to the article and that's a good start. If you still believe the article to be a fabrication, you could tag it with {{hoax}} and/or nominate it for deletion. Small-town hero (talk) 22:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article as it now stands is correct, although I've had trouble adding the FCHD link at the bottom.I can't see the mistake I've made with it ? (Ralphtheclaret (talk) 13:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC));[reply]

Portal:Cumbria

Just to let you know that there is a Wikipedia portal for Cumbria. I just found it. It looks like no one is looking after it, so maybe someone should either look after it or it could be deleted. I don't think anybody wants to maintain a portal but if you wish to be my guest. 93gregsonl2 (talk) 21:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's something that needs to be deleted. There are portals for Greater Manchester and Cheshire, so it would be nice if this could be improved and perhaps eventually we could have a Lancashire portal as well. It's not something I'm interested in at the moment, though. Small-town hero (talk) 01:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Idea for the future

Maybe we could make a combined portal for Lancs and Cumbria like this WP. It would be much easier to maintain and manage. What does everyone think about that? Please comment. 93gregsonl2 (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Portals are a good concept, but I think the reality is that they're not actually very useful. Their purpose is to help someone interested in the topic navigate it, but I for one didn't know about portals until I'd been signed up for about a year. I doubt the casual user comes across them much and in August 2009 the Greater Manchester portal got only about 400 views, and the portal for North West England fared little better with about 550 views in the same month. I wonder how many of those views came from the casual users of Wikipedia who make up most of the traffic to the site. I suppose a few hundred a month isn't something to be ignored altogether, but perhaps it shouldn't be too high a priority. Nev1 (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I don't think I am interessed on working on portals to be honest neither do I belive it should be a high priority. But if anyone wants to spend time building a portal then please feel free to. 93gregsonl2 (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup listing

This project now has a cleanup listing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria/Cleanup listing, which highlights the various issues and problems with articles under this project. Small-town hero (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New articles listing

We also have a new articles listing at User:AlexNewArtBot/LancashireCumbriaSearchResult. This is a bot generated list which is updated reguarly and should not be edited manually. It may still need some improvement, but it should help us keep track of any newly created articles. Small-town hero (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do we mark these that they have been considered and assigned or otherwise? At least two of the articles don't come within our remit. Even once the project template has been added to the others then they'll still be on this list, won't they? NtheP (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's really necessary. It's not like there's a huge influx of new articles (seems to be about one or two a day) and the list is never going to be foolproof with regards to what's included; it's more of a guide for finding new articles than an exhaustive list per se. You could perhaps strike entries on the list or tag them with {{done}} or whatever, I don't know if the bot would overwrite such changes or not. But it wouldn't really be constructive to add entries manually. The listing is a tool more than anything else. Small-town hero (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fairy snuff. We'll come up with something, strike is probably the best bet. NtheP (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infomation on Blocked User

It ocured to me today that User:Pr3st0n has been blocked indefitely and I am a little confused on why. Could anyone tell me? He was a good contributor to our WikiProject. If he has gone then his name should be removed from the list of participants. 93gregsonl2 (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

see here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive570#Copyright concerns, User:Pr3st0n basically repeated copyright violations and refusal to admit it. NtheP (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...particularly the repeated refusal to admit it despite overwhelming evidence. -- Dr Greg  talk  22:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It also looks like Nev1 has gone too (but not blocked). Both of those people were fantastic contributors to our WikiProject. They will be missed. 93gregsonl2 (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you think Nev1 has gone. He might not have done anything related to this project for a while, but he's been editing Wikipedia today (see Special:Contributions/Nev1). -- Dr Greg  talk  22:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry folks, I'm still here but as my time is limited I decided to focus on the castle article. It's quite possible it will lead me to take a look at some of Lancashire and Cumbria's castles once the main article is done. I'm still here, and I'll make an effort to check this talk page more often. Nev1 (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both of you. I just needed to know. Thanks. But it's sad to see Preston go as he was a good contributor to the lostock hall article. 93gregsonl2 (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our WikiProject currently has no featured pictures. And I was wondering how you can put pictures up for featured picture status. Could anybody help me? I would like the picture on the left to be nominated. Could someone do that for me and show me how I can do it myself? Thanks. 93gregsonl2 (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates - this tells you how to do it. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following are all Quality Images on Wikimedia Commons:

The ones in bold text are also Featured Pictures here on the English Wikipedia. Small-town hero (talk) 12:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Importance scale

There are still over 550 articles under our scope that have not yet been given an importance rating. I will try and do some myself but I can not possibly deal with over 550 of them. So if anyone has a coulple of minuties to spare then please do a few. I and the rest of the WikiProject team will be very gratful. Any problems just write it here and we will sort ot out together.

PS: I apologise for my spelling, I am just dreadful. 93gregsonl2 (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just done over 100. A lot of them are villages which can be rated Mid-importance. Small-town hero (talk) 02:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All articles now assessed (and I'm going to have a drink to celebrate!). NtheP (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We now have a popular pages list on the Wikimedia Toolserver. This is a list of articles tagged for this project which have been viewed the most since the start of November. Stats will be archived at the end of each month. Small-town hero (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lancashire_and_Cumbria&oldid=324269960"