This is an archive of past discussions with User:DankJae. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Brecon, Radnor and Cwm tawe (UK Parliament constituency)
Kindly request deletion your redirect as it became a typo. Final recommendations were already published. Type db-g7 inside {{}} then save. Santiago Claudio (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough, that constituency was mistyped twice :D, and I created the correct one.
Hello hello! I just wanted to mention that I moved Penarth Fawr as the first step of a major re-write of the article which I've now largely completed, similar to the ones I've recently done at Dolwyddelan Castle and Criccieth Castle. You couldn't have known I was in the middle of that edit, obviously, but I don't want to get a reputation for carelessness! A.D.Hope (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
@A.D.Hope. Oh! Apologies, haha no worries, yes I was not aware and it had been hours after the edit, although how long were you doing a re-write? :D (I personally use my sandbox for hours long, after many times I lost my work or later had edit conflicts). Maybe use {{under construction}} or {{In use}} (especially for more known articles, if you want or just in case), but I'll give you more time incase you are doing a major edits now. Appreciate your efforts!
Well, to be frank I didn't think the re-write would take as long as it did (medieval roofs are surprisingly complex), which is why I went for an 'active' re-write over a sandbox one. The page seems to get about six views on a good day and the last human edit was May 2022, so I honestly wasn't expecting anyone else to stroll by. If I'm in a similar situation again I'll just do the move at the end and save any confusion, but please step in to correct my edits if necessary, it'll teach me a lesson if nothing else! :D A.D.Hope (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't suppose you know why an identical reference used in both an efn and in the body displays as two references rather than one in a reference list? I'm having a bit of a battle with the Pevsner reference (ref 5 and 7) at Penarth Fawr and you seem to know what you're doing when it comes to these things. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
@A.D.Hope, Seems KJP1 has altered it so unsure what needs to be done now. Tbh don't know too much on references (but getting there), especially sfns, but I believe sfns are preferred if the source cited is large and uses multiple individual pages (without the need to specifiy the page inline). DankJae09:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Oh don't worry, we're back to sfns and it's staying that way. As you can see I'm still very much working out the more wikitext-heavy forms of referencing myself, but thanks for replying! A.D.Hope (talk) 09:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Cheers for sorting the Dolwyddelan infobox — I could have sworn I did exactly what you've done, but clearly not! Wikitext defeats me yet again.
What do you think of combining the infoboxes? I don't think Tomen Castell is necessarily significant enough for its own article and its history is closely tied to Dolwyddelan, so it seems like a sensible arrangement. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
@A.D.Hope, I would prefer if there was a sort of clearer divider in the infobox tbh but don’t think there is one, but will check. If Tomen Castell is given its own section in the article would prefer the infobox is moved there, but it can remain as it is if splitting Tomen Castell into its own section is impractical. DankJae15:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, a clearer division would be good. At the moment I don't plan to give Tomen Castell its own section within Dolwyddelan Castle, as it's only really mentioned as context and to address the legend about Llywelyn the Great's birthplace. What we could do, though, is give Tomen a section in Dolwyddelan village and put the infobox there. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Dolwyddean Population
Hey Jae!
I know community populations haven't been formally published by the ONS yet, but they have published the population by Output Area. You can find the OAs here, and see that by and large they follow community boundaries, albeit subdivided. Since Dolwyddelan is exactly covered by two OAs I didn't see any harm in pulling up that OA data and doing some simple adding to get the 2021 population.
@A.D.Hope, thanks, and I see you've since edited the reference to explain it more clearly, that's great! Couldn't connect the dots when it was just unlinked "2021 census" and another ref as a link to a downloadable document with only codes. Ofc, it should be replaced once the ONS finally releases their data in a citable format. (They're taking so long :/) DankJae10:05, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I fully admit it's a bit of a janky reference even in its updated form, but I do think the average reader could follow it. It'll certainly be a lot easier when the ONS release the data properly! A.D.Hope (talk) 10:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Well ofc the easiest reference to follow would be one that states "Dolwyddelan's population is", if the source is not clear, explaining it clearer should help both readers and editors verify it easily. I am generally suspicious of any references on places smaller than counties that reference the 2021 census as they've not released data for smaller sub-divisions than counties. Saw some cite citypopulation.de but that seems suspiciously self-published somewhat and the ONS is preferred. DankJae10:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
As I understand it the data is out there, it's just not been compiled into community/civil parish datasets yet and so is still in the somewhat awkward output area form. When the ONS do compile the data they'll basically just agglomerate the various levels of output area, as explained here and in more detail here (pp. 16–18). I don't think citypopulation is an entirely reliable source myself, but the output area date should be fine as it comes directly from the ONS. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Makes sense, as long as how the end result was calculated is explained somewhat in the citation or text, although not be overused as it is technically a bit synth. And yeah, using citypopulation.de is basically using that one person's (or their bot's) definition. DankJae14:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Dolwyddelan Castle
"Oh no, it's A.D.Hope again"
Just a quick one — I'm in the middle of a GA nomination for Dolwyddelan Castle and the only editor actively working on the article, so if you could find any time to give it a bit of a look over I'd really appreciate it. You don't need to know anything about the history of the place, it's more the style and formatting which need scrubbing up. You seem to have an eye for both and you're interested in Wales, which is why you sprang to mind! No pressure though, A.D.Hope (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
@A.D.Hope, Oh no, it's A.D.Hope again, no no no, don't feel pressured to not ask, I am fine with it , it is much better than doing something you're not sure of doing, so I am happy to answer any questions or direct you in the right direction. Wikipedia takes a bit of time, and so far you've been very helpful and constructive which is appreciative.
I'll check the style and formatting at some point, and I'll also check the review if needed, to see if I can help with anything. Yeah, I'm more into the style and formatting stuff as I usually am not too into history, but I should probably personally really consider the GA article criteria myself (I find it quite daunting), and see if a few long articles I have made can be reformed into them tbh. So if this GA passes it would be an amazing achievement for yourself! DankJae21:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Oh don't worry, I was just being tongue-in-cheek as I've popped up here a fair bit of late! It has been quite fun to throw myself into the GA process, if nothing else it's helped me identify my editing strengths and weaknesses (markup). The criteria aren't that daunting once you get into it, they're mostly things a competent editor will already be doing, but the scale does makes it more difficult as you're pulling a whole article into shape rather than a snippet.
Anyway, thanks for agreeing to help, and if you want any help at all with GA nominations just ping me and I'll be happy to return the favour! A.D.Hope (talk) 08:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
@A.D.Hope, yeah, the scale is bit of the issue for me, I usually associate GAs with larger topics, and going through everything is tiring but fully understandable as to why. Plus some WP:MOS guideline can also catch me off guard. I'll consider your offer in time, or at least watch how the GA review goes, to pick anything from them. DankJae19:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Sure, I don't think there's a set size limit for a GA but they naturally tend to be longer as a side effect of meeting the criteria. Between you and me I don't think much about the MOS, it's mostly common sense and anything blatantly wrong tends to get picked up sooner or later. For now though yeah, feel free to just watch how this GA review unfolds. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
If I can give you a specific issue, is there a way to format the Coflein element of citation 23 so that it displays the NPRN number as well as 'RCAHMW'? A.D.Hope (talk) 10:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, that's me not explaining myself well. In what's now footnote 25 the NPRN appears as a second author — 'RCAHMW & 95299'. So far as I know {{sfnmp}} doesn't support num=, but is there some way of formatting the citation so that the ampersand is removed? A.D.Hope (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
@A.D.Hope, hmn, tried something but that seemed to cut the connection between the two. I don't know too much of sfnmp, sorry. But per Template:Coflein documentation, the ampersand seems to be intentional. If a short citation is required (not to be confused with |short=) and one of the {{harv}} templates or {{sfn}} is used then {{harv|RCAHMW|NPRN}} will link the short reference to the long one. For example, {{harv|RCAHMW|24145}} produces (RCAHMW & 24145) that links to the 'Pontypridd Old Bridge, Pontypridd' example above.DankJae20:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Well, if that's how it's meant to be that's how we'll have to leave it! Visually it's a tad annoying, but I'm sure I'll cope. Thanks for looking into it for me, appreciated as always. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
updated it, was wondering if it could've been preserved under a specific dab page tbh prior to the move. DankJae14:39, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
map template
Ah, didn't really notice the list, was only looking at the map, and found the footnote seemed wrong! Perhaps don't specify, just state that they're given when different and leave the reader to recognise which they are? PamD21:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
