This is an archive of past discussions with User:Lewisskinner. 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.
Lealholm was not promoted to GA status on June 30th
WP:YORKS is a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 3509 last month to 3635 on June 29th). WP:GM has the lead in FAs. WP:YORKS is lacking in the area of GAs and falls well behind WP:LONDON. This topic was at the front of the new aims discussion and is an important issue for WP:YORKS.
Member News
There are now 47 members of WikiProject Yorkshire! A warm welcome to the 3 new members that have joined us since the June newsletter:
No users left the WikiProject this month, but 1 user was registered twice under different logins and has been consolidated.
Thanks
The Yorkshire Portal continues to be maintained by User:Kaly99 once again, thank you. User:Kaly99 would very much appreciate comments at peer review. There has been a number of suggestions on the ToDo list and this has been kept up to date too.
The football and rugby editors have to be congratulated for keeping abreast of most, if not all, of the top clubs. Also for getting Scarborough F.C. seasons to FL status during the month.
There have been even more WikiProkject Yorkshire editors on vandal patrol on watchlist. Thanks it's really good to know that you have others in support.
A big "thank you" to all the editors who help make this WikiProject what it is; no edit goes unnoticed. If you patrol the recent changes regularly you "get to know" the editors and their specialities quite well.
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
Informal article viewing and editing statistics for 5 of our priority articles
Rated a B class article. Viewed 40,122 times in May, 2008. Only went below 1,000 viewings on one day, 10th, and achieved 1,600 on the 6th and the 20th. Overall total number of edits 1,818 with 46 in May, 2008.
Rated a B class article. Viewed 38,018 times in May, 2008. On 12 days there were over 1,000 viewings with a sudden peak of 4,200 on the 24th. Overall number of edits 2,269 with 88 in May, 2008.
Rated a B class article. The highest number of monthly viewings for our priority articles at 50,846 for the month of May, 2008. There were consistently over 1,000 daily viewings with a high of 2,000 on the 25th. Overall total number of edits 3,152 with 86 in May, 2008.
Rated an FA class article.Viewed 37,740 times in May, 2008 with usually over 1,000 daily viewings. There were 6 days when over 1,400 viewings were made then a low of 900 on the 10th. Overall total number of edits 2,550 with 44 in May, 2008.
Rated a GA class article and actively being worked on for FAC. Viewed 42,902 times in May, 2008. Consistently over 1,000 daily viewings with 2,000 viewings on the 12th. Overall total number of edits 2,434 with 241 in May, 2008.
Monitor Use the watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism can be removed as quickly as possible.
Images! There is a shortage of good images in Yorkshire related articles, particularly on pages about smaller settlements. A good place to start would be the requested photographs category but please remember that there are many articles not within this category that have the same need. A good old holiday picture of The Spa, Bridlington would be a useful addition to the article.
Assessment Assess and review Assessment of Yorkshire related articles has been brought up to date recently, but needs constant maintenance.
Last but not Least... Please remember that the list of stubs needing expansion is in permanent need of attention. Please take a look and see what you can do. One small edit each session would make a big difference.
Delivered July 2008 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add two *'s by your username on the Project Mainpage.
→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page. → This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 12:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello there! Thanks for the contact. I'm afraid Richard's suggestion will be more fruitful; I lost pretty much all my hard copies of the maps last winter when my PC died out-of-the-blue. I lost a hell of a lot of source material I'd collected for them, and other precious but unrelated images and files too. I'm not sure what I can suggest really; I think asking User:JeremyA might be of some use - he's a good cartographer. Sorry to let you down on this one. --Jza84 | Talk 19:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your help the pair of you. I have indeed contacted JeremyA, but from the looks of thing, he hasn't responded to a message (save for a simple revert[1])on his talk page since February.[2]
I made a semi-revert to (these) as a compromise. I appreciate your logic here, but please remember, places like West Yorkshire are counties per policy, and certainly not "subdivisions of Yorkshire". The whole Yorkshire categorisation needs a rethink as currently, we're treating Yorkshire as a modern county made up of four parts, which is pure original conjecture. On reflection I did think having a Yorkshire "mother" category for football clubs was appropriate in that some were founded in Yorkshire as it existed at the time - some of the other parts of the Yorkshire category need a restructure however. --Jza84 | Talk 22:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The problem here is the geography of Yorkshire, rather than the clubs themselves. Most of the clubs were founded in Yorkshire "as it was then". Rotherham Town F.C. as an obvious example, existed only in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and whilst Rotherham is now in South Yorkshire for ceremonial purposes, Rotherham Town F.C. never was. Sheffield United F.C. was formed when Sheffield was in the West Riding, and it is now ceremonially in South Yorkshire. Harrogate Town F.C. though, formed with Harrogate in the West Riding, and is now ceremonially in North Yorkshire.
Note that I am deliberately using the word "ceremonially" here, because, whilst NY, SY, WE and ERY are not subdivisions of Yorkshire, Yorkshire has not been wiped from the map. A government statement made in 1974, when the Local Government Act 1972 came into effect stated that:
"The new county boundaries are administrative areas, and will not alter the traditional boundaries of counties, nor is it intended that the loyalties of people living in them will change, despite the different names adopted by the new administrative counties."[3]
I've noticed the two reverts you've made to this article on the basis that the DVR cannot or do not want to extend this far. The last time I was in the area a couple of years ago, there was sufficient space to run a single track from the junction with the main line to the rear of Dixons/Capita Call at Nunnery Square and then on through the remains of Viccy as far as Deepcar. Has this changed? The hotel on Victoria doesn't cover the entire site, and if there is space for the DVR to extend, I couldn't see them turning down the opportunity. Lamberhurst (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I have said nothing of the sort, and I will thank you not to put words in my mouth. I have, indeed, on stated that DVR want to extend approx 1,200 metres beyond Victoria Station, but that they will not re-open at Vicky. I have only reverted edits which have described the route as anything other than Deepcar to Sheffield Nunnery Square via Wharncliffe Side, Oughtibridge, Wadsley Bridge, Sheffield College (Hillsborough Campus) and Sheffield Ski Village and will continue to do so until the source material states otherwise. There is no stop at Wortley, Stocksbridge, Neepsend or Vicky. L.J.Skinnerwot|I did16:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
First - please remember WP:CIVIL, a simple question by an interested observer does not merit a rude response. Second - my observation was based on your comment used in one of the reverts: "DVS have no intension of reopening Vicky (indeed it'd be impossible with the expanded hotel). Terminus would be at Nunnery". Third - there is no "source material" - the article cites exactly zero sources. Fourth - there is no "route", only proposals. Lamberhurst (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, so in addition to you amazing skills at putting incorrect word into someone's mouth you're also amazingly able to illicit vocal intonations from a textual conversation are you? I have been perfectly civil, and fail to spot the alleged rudeness - I simply asked you not to misquote me! I never said that DVR would stop short of Vicky, and indeed have stated twice that it will go beyond Vicky, once in an article,[4] and once in an edit summary.[5] Fine if you are commenting on one of my reverts and the edit summary, but please check over the past week, and you will see that several anonymous users have been posting this same incorrect information:
Suffice to say, I've had to do a lot of gardening on this group of articles. And how you can say that there is no source when you have quoted one of my edits summaries, apart from the source! "DVS have no intension of reopening Vicky (indeed it'd be impossible with the expanded hotel). Terminus would be at Nunnery - http://www.donvalleyrailway.org/project/sheffield.)" - there is the source! - http://www.donvalleyrailway.org/project/sheffield! Try clicking, and maybe you will see why I have tried to keep all mentioned of Sheffield Victoria station out of Don Valley Railway and vice versa. Of course there is no DVR source in the Vicky article - it doesn't belong there!
Quite obviously I'm wasting my time with you, and quite why you decided to adopt an aggressive and defensive tone in response to a simple good faith question from afar about the DVR is beyond me. My question had nothing to do with your "gardening" activities, only simply to discover if you had information other than that which is available on the DVR website (evidently not). It's to the credit of wikipedia that you are the first especially rude person I've come across in my time on here. Lamberhurst (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
What's wrong now? I answered your question in my first response - the line will run from Deepcar to Nunnery, through, but not including, the old Victoria Station. I chose to give you some extra information - the location of the stations on route. Finally, I clarified that I had not said that the route would terminate before Vicky, rather 1,200 metres east of (after) Vicky, at Nunnery. I am not being aggressive or defensive - an oxymoron if ever there was one - as I've said before, You cannot tell someone's tone from simple text! If you wanted to know if I had information other than what was on the DVR website, couldn't you have simply asked that specific question? I'd be happy to direct you to the following:
Hi Lewisskinner, thanks for your message. I don't think these should be listed as external links in all these stadium pages, it constitutes spamming to a commercial site - relevant information should be converted into references. There are many dozens of stadium and football ground websites. Duncan's site is just one of them and whilst his site is excellent, particularly the message boards, the links are nearly all from early on in the page's history and their usefulness has been overtaken by the improvement in quality and quantity of the stadium articles. There isn't much that a 1 minute google search couldn't locate on any of the dozens of stadium and football ground review websites. It is after all a commercial website and carries heavy advertising.
Most of the major stadia such as Anfield, St James' Park and Old Trafford have converted links to stadium guide websites into references and removed the spam external links altogether. Many only external link to the club's official website if at all. I believe this is the correct approach to improve the encyclopedic integrity and to combat EL spamming of stadium pages.
