For the most part, I was just doing a bit of housekeeping, getting rid of dead links, format, etc. Will have a look. Who are you btw? Ojsyork (talk) 15:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've started again with some updates for the Tyne Class.
Hopefully you'll be OK with the reference to 2023 LBES handbook.
Thanks for that, one hint, having established a name for the ref, you don't have to repeat the whole ref every time. Subsequent iterations just need the formula <ref name="LBES 2023" />. Regards Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help. I see you have done a little tidying - thankyou.
It's good to see you bringing the lifeboat class pages up to date, I know how much effort it takes to bring all the information together.
You say that you don't think that breaking rows into multiple rows when lifeboats have been at multiple stations is going to be maintainable in the future. So far I've only done a couple of tables for old classes which won't have any new stations to add, but even on current fleets it is fairly straightforward to change when we need to. For example, if a boat has been at 2 stations but is moved to a 3rd, just change the 'rowspan' attributes at the start of its rows from "2" to "3" and add two more rows at the bottom for the new dates and station name.
<br/> tags shouldn't be used in lists as it causes accessibility problems. MOS:PARABR offers some alternatives, but they only work if there is just one list. The lifeboat tables have two lists in different columns that need to align perfectly. It becomes a complete nonsense if the number of lines for stations is different to the number of dates as people can't read across them correctly, but this can happen when the columns display as an unintended width.
By the way, I'd be happy to see the lifeboat stations that don't have articles to continue to have redlinks in the lifeboat class articles. This not only reminds editors that there is an article to create, it also makes it easier when the station's article is created as we won't have to go around all the lifeboat class pages to add the new link. Geof Sheppard (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Geof
I'm a newcomer to editing Wiki pages, driven out of the frustration of seeing no updates on the Lifeboat pages. (I'm a member of the Lifeboat Enthusiasts Society, and volunteer for the RNLI Heritage Team). I'm still finding my feet, trying to update carefully and considerately, without causing havoc.
Two things I wanted - to see more recent updates, and to tidy up some of the pages.
One thing that annoyed me most, was the number of red articles with no link. It all looked a complete mess, with black text, blue links, and red no-links.
However, one of the things crucial to me as a Wiki USER, was that the information on each table could be cut and pasted into excel, to create a checklist for collectors, for example postcard collectors.
As a newbie, I don't wish to tread on anyone's toes. Certainly don't want to go falling out with someone who can help sort out all kinds of errors and mistake I might make.
Having carefully looked at your updated Oakley and Brede class pages, and asked several other friends and lifeboat enthusiasts, we don't think the updated format is an improvement.
The information presentation is overly fussy.
AND, you can no longer cut and paste without a whole load of work.
And then the code behind the page is a dreadful mess too. Before it was relative clean and simple, now there are rowspan instructions all over the place.
I didn't say that it wasn't possible to maintain - just for someone like me, it's a whole lot harder, to the point where I probably won't bother anymore.
Which is a shame, as you had someone prepared to put in the effort to keep these pages updated.
Having managed to get most of the lifeboat fleet pages in some kind of order and uniformity, I would really appreciate if we could revert the Oakley and Brede pages to the previous format.
By way of a compromise - I will put in the effort to reinstate all of the red links that you prefer, that I have so carefully deleted over these past few weeks!
Your work is really appreciated. We all had steep learning curves when we started so keep at it.
I'm not sure that Wikipedia is designed for people to cut and paste to a spreadsheet but I've tried it with the 'rowspan' tables and they pasted perfectly into both Word and Excel fist time. (I dragged across the whole table, checked that every cell was highlighted, then selected 'copy'; then I placed my cursor in Excel cell A1 and selected 'paste').
However, it is important that it is accessible to as many people as possible. The old version with the lists within cells is not accessible to people using assistive technology such as screen readers. These read through each cell in turn so they would perceive something like:
As for the red linked lifeboat stations, I was just explaining my thinking and preferences; if you (or another editor) prefers to remove them I'm not going to lose sleep over it. Geof Sheppard (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou once again for your unwanted update.
I asked you in the most respectful way possible to please remove your earlier update. All I got back was a load of arrogance and absolutely no compromise whatsoever. This is what WE want.
Well as far as I understand with Wiki, there is no preferred way.
Hello to The joy of all things. (Do you have a name)?
If I was taking info from one source, and applying it once, then yes, I think a page no. along with the reference is good.
I refer to the Lifeboat Enthusiasts handbook, which is really just a directory of names, numbers and dates, compiled over many years by their archivist.
If I were to update every entry with a reference, I'd never get anything updated, which to me seems to be the bigger problem.
Having updated the Filey station page for example, I've verified 13 service dates, 13 Names, 8 Op Numbers, and 7 ON numbers (adding 2). To add a page number ref for each of these just becomes impractical, so I just reference the book.
Sadly it has no ISBN etc, but is probably the only reference source available, without trawling the RNLI Archives.
I'm not wishing to tread on anyone's toes or upset anyone, and especially as
I saw you had done a lot of previous updates, so I'm more than willing to make compromise etc. However, I can't see that me adding page references at this point is going to help.
I haven't done the updates - I created all the Yorkshire-based RNLI articles from scratch (you can check the history of each one). How about a page range then - you simply put a parameter of "pages" into the cite:[1] Just pick the first and last pages you have consulted, or you could be more specific.[2] The point of putting as much information in as possible, makes the article reliably sourced (WP:RS) and verifiable (WP:VERIFY) to readers. Otherwise the articles are less reliable, and end up with lots of maintenance tags within them. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to add page numbers for all the other pages, as I have better things to do in life, and I'm not going to come back and redo all the page references next year when the new handbook is out, when all I need to do is change 2023 to 2024.
I am disappointed that you seem more concerned with the minutia detail, than the fact that someone has bothered to come and add info and correct errors. Its no wonder folk don't make updates if someone picks holes in everything they do.
I have one chap who reformatted 3 pages and rewrote everything less than 6 hours after I'd spent all day adding updates.
To be honest, I find the Yorkshire pages overburdened with unneccessary links and references. To keep referring to Nick Leach's book for example page by page seems really rather pointless. Not sure what it achieves.
Seems all to easy for some Wiki editors to request extra references, but they never reply when you ask what they need.
Conversation with other wiki editors have indicated that it is fine to just tag once.
There is no intention to offended you with the updates. I have to say I was very pleased to see all the pages in Yorkshire, and appreciate what a mountain it was to create.
Just found that there was a mishmash of stuff wrong, not necessarily anything you have added. And missing boats, ON numbers, wrong ON numbers etc. Deleting quite a few dead links, Yorkshire Post seem good at deleting their content.
So please, let's just be reasonable about stuff. I'd be more than happy to help with info. Love to see pages for redundant stations, like Robin Hood's Bay.
I refer to the whole bloomin book, all 128 pages of it.
As for the Collection box thing in Scarborough. Yes, fair point. Let me see what I can do. I was too busy updating , and forgot I'd added that. Ojsyork (talk) 23:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I will respond to the above in turn:
The phrases you are using To keep referring to Nick Leach's book for example page by page seems really rather pointless. Not sure what it achieves. rankles to be quite honest. As I have explained earlier, it is about verifiability and reliable sourcing of citations to make it a stable encyclopedia. You state that you corrected bad information on ON and Op numbers, but these are reliably sourced to the pages in that book. Whilst I agree that they may be wrong, you have changed to different numbers without properly applying your sources. How would you feel if I undid your edits and said unsourced in my edit summaries? You probably be a bit annoyed?
There are rules to editing on Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Ten simple rules for editing Wikipedia) and ways to deal with certain issues. For instance, on the Whitby page, you deleted a dead link url. If you insert a {{dead link|date=December 2023}} tag in the citation, a bot will come along and try and rescue the citation through the Wayback Machine (though this will only work on web-based cites). As you can see, I manually rescued the citation with the appropriate template, so the information is verifiable and not lost to the article.
I am prepared to help you, but please re-think your attitude of I am not going to add page numbers for all the other pages, as I have better things to do in life. That seems a bit like WP:NOTHERE to me. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a thought, the article List of RNLI stations, lists 193 stations in the UK (excluding NI), of which 81 still have no article (that's 41.96%). Try writing some of these and putting your energy into turning the redlinks into bluelinks rather than us disagreeing about things. Montrose and Sunderland do not have articles, and they are the oldest lifeboat stations. As you state about Robin Hood's Bay, there must be many more closed stations without articles.....The joy of all things (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. As I said first, I have no wish to offend.
Please accept my apologies if I have done so.
I am really Very aware of the time and effort that has been put in to these pages before me, and all pages are treated with a great deal of respect. I try not to be heavy handed.
That said, if things were upto date, I wouldn't even be here.
I have changed round the format of fleet pages only to match with the RNLI Fleet pages.
With regard to Nick Leach book, Absolutely this should be referenced. I am not questioning you for doing this - its great.
I just don't think referencing every entry is necessary.
I have not deleted any book references.
Much is the same with adding page numbers to the LBES reference. I will do that if you wish, but I really don't understand what is it achieving for anyone?
As far as changing ON numbers etc, I have only needed to change two entries in any of the NE coast stations, as they were transcribed. All the rest have been additions where there was no entry. There was nothing else incorrect.
I have tried to be very careful deleting references to webpages.
I wasn't aware about the Bot thing, and shall re-evaluate what I do. However, I checked out the redone deleted link, and I have to question what is being achieved, as there seemed to be very little information relevant to the station?
If I had your amazing talent, then I would be up for creating missing pages, but I just don't have those skills yet. I'd be quite happy to try fill the gaps, and add fleet pages, but can't work out how to start creating a page from scratch.
Sorry, I am not always aware you are editing on your own page. If you wish to contact me (or indeed any other editor) use the {{u|editor's name here}} ping template. However, the conversation between you and I about Whitby Lifeboat Station is restricted to the two of us. Please ask questions about specific stations etc at their respective talk pages, as many more editors will see and possibly weigh in. I personally, see nothing wrong with the paragraph about the sacked lifeboatmen at Whitby, and it is hard to see which side you are in favour of actually!
I think you raised some valid points about how I've done things, and I've revised my approach.
I will only add detail, correct if necessary, and I'm not deleting any links, dead or otherwise, unless in the process of correction they become irrelevant.
"Interestingly it suggests using a "Dates in Service" title, not "In Service".
What you're really saying is that I've been naughty, and done it wrong again. Like who knew there was a specific Wiki page for RNLI format.
I see no logic to there being TWO different methods of recording fleet details; you're right, one way has Dates In Service, but the other just has "In Service".
In my mind, "Dates (In Service)" is just needless extra text above a list of dates! The first way presents much better, and I'll stick with that.
I assume that most folk encountering Wiki for the first time as an editor, like me, find ourselves outsiders as part of an exclusive club. I have made every effort to 'blend in' with formats, and generally do the right thing by the folk that went first. But there seems little encouragement, and not much appreciation. I guess most walk away, which is why there are great gaping holes in the information everywhere.
"Interestingly it suggests using a "Dates in Service" title, not "In Service". What you're really saying is that I've been naughty, and done it wrong again. Like who knew there was a specific Wiki page for RNLI format. Not at all, I would have changed them back if I had thought that. Don't be disheartened, the community likes articles to follow the same format, which is why they have WikiProjects to make sure everything is harmonised. There are a myriad of rules, but sometimes just being bold is the way forward. It's a community consensus, which is why I posted the sacking thing on the Whitby page; you may just find like-minded editors who agree that it should be expunged. The joy of all things (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
References
^Leonard, Richie; Denton, Tony (2023). Lifeboat Enthusiasts Handbook 2023. Lifeboats Enthusiasts Society. pp. 23–45.
^Leonard, Richie; Denton, Tony (2023). Lifeboat Enthusiasts Handbook 2023. Lifeboats Enthusiasts Society. pp. 23–45, 67, 90–102.
Whitby lifeboat sacking
There is one thing I need to discuss with you.
To quote Wiki - Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced.
I'm referring to this...
"In 2018, two crew members from Whitby were sacked after a picture of a fellow crew member was superimposed upon a pornographic image. This doctored photo was then printed upon a mug that one of the crew members kept on the boat. Despite heavy criticism from those sacked, as well as supporting parties, the RNLI upheld the dismissals after an appeal.""
This is completely misleading and incorrect.
The Telegraph reference requires subscription to read.
So I would ask you to check this out, bizarrely, the Daily Mail updated version, and consider whether what is on the Station page is fair.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5836995/Lifeboat-men-sacked-pornographic-mug-lose-appeal.html
Hi, I hope you don't mind, but I have moved this into a new section, so we can keep track of what has been said and to separate out the two strands as they relate to different subjects.
The information is not poorly sourced (see this ref[1]) as The Daily Telegraph and my ref (BBC News) are considered Reliable Sources. One of the facets of Wikipedia is that we have a neutral point of view and just report the facts without bias (or as much as is possible). The quote from the wikipedia guidelines of "Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced" relates to using unreliable or poorly sourced information about a person (or persons) which could lead to legal issues. So if the source for the two sacked members had been YouTube or Facebook, then that would have fallen under WP:UGC which is unreliable. The information is accurate as to what is reported in the sources. If we had strayed from this policy, say we said something in the paragraph which supported one side over the other, then that would be biased and not WP:NPOV.
The same is true of using flowery language and Peacock terms - "Whitby Lifeboat station is the best lifeboat station in the RNLI." We'd need to state why it is the best lifeboat station in the RNLI with an appropriate source. What is stated in the paragraph is okay in my opinion as it accurately represents what is reported in the sources. If the individuals had been named on the article page when their names were not included in the sources, then that would be very bad indeed. Because this is an encyclopedia, we try to maintain facts with as little bias as possible.
Interestingly, the Daily Mail is wholly unreliable according to Wikipedia's standards (Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL quote: "The Daily Mail has a "reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication"".)
I know how you feel, I recently left the Royal Air Force after more than 25 years of service, and the reports of sexual harassment etc in the service really bothered me. But I stayed away from that because of a conflict of interest (WP:COI). Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 23:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly I have deleted my message from the previous thread.
Regarding Whitby and sackings, through my RNLI connections, I shall just say that I know that things were far more serious that laid out in the newspapers, and that the RNLI don't sack volunteers on a whim. Whilst I'm absolutely not a fan of the Daily Mail, they seem to have captured more of the detail than some others this time around (even though their first attempt was total sensationalism). I won't go into more detail here, except to add that it also involved a school visit. I'm sure you can imagine..
Deleting the text may not go down well, especially by those who still feel hard done by, but its been a while now, so maybe time that its forgotten about, and not recorded against the station history.
Hello, Ojsyork, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:
In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.
I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.
I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick(Talk)13:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
Don't know what you deleted apart from everything I just added.
I see no indication on that page that the content is licensed in a way that it can be reused. Did I miss it?
I had performed a revision deletion to hide the edit which I have turned off so you can look for yourself. When we are done, unless you persuade me I made a mistake, I will restore the revision deletion.
Not everyone is aware that it is standard operating procedure when removing a copyright issue to perform a rollback which undoes all consecutive edits by the same editor.
You use the term "publicly available". I don't know what that term means in terms of copyright/plagiarism issues. Can you tell me how you are using it? I have run across people who are under the impression that if they can find something on the Internet they can use it which is most certainly not the case, but it would be helpful if you could explain how you are using the term. S Philbrick(Talk)18:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware that there is any copyright to the RNLI station history pages. No Copyright showing on their pages.
Just a bunch of facts available to anyone to use, and as I'm aware from being an RNLI Researcher, for the use of promoting the service.
With regard to Station Honours, absolutely what they want to promote.
I think in many cases, their 'info' is borrowed from other sources, incl Wiki. Absolutely that's the source.
I juggled about with the info many times,
BUT if what I did is not acceptable, then I'm happy to rewrite it.
Not too happy that you just deleted everything else I'd done.
I'm having a hard time with Wiki editors. Far too many bothered about spaces and minor grammatical errors, which I accept are important, but taken to the level where it puts off new folk like me having a go.
I have one guy correcting my edits - mid edit. 12 minutes I think was the last one.
However, at least you had the decency to message.
If you can reinstate everything at least upto Station Honours, that would be much appreciated.
I am not aware that there is any copyright to the RNLI station history pages. No Copyright showing on their pages.
That's not how this works. Many years ago, it was the case that if the content wasn't explicitly identified as subject to copyright then it wasn't subject to copyright. That changed with the Berne Convention. I'm in the US and more familiar with the timing of copyright issues in the US so if the source material is Welsh, we may have to check to confirm the timing but I'll be stunned if that convention hasn't been an application for decades. Under the Berne Convention everything is automatically subject to copyright, with some exceptions. While it is still common for many media enterprises to add copyright notices, it's not explicitly required. In Wikipedia, subject to the aforementioned exceptions (material prior to 1926 or so, material created by employees of the US federal government, and some others), we look to see if there is an explicit licensing permitting use in Wikipedia. Failing that, it can't be used, except as a reference or, in some cases as a quotation if sufficiently short and appropriate. (Copyright law and Wikipedia copyright rules are incredibly complex — please don't take my casual two or three sentences as trying to summarize all of policy.)
With regard to Station Honours, absolutely what they want to promote.
Please read WP:PROMOTION. Wikipedia is definitely not here to help serve the needs of those who wish to promote. It doesn't really matter if they are supportive of promotion, we are not.
I think you have taken my reference to 'Promotion' too far.
This is not about Me or the RNLI wishing to 'promote' anything, ... I shall try to explain a different way.
The RNLI is the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, made up of hundreds of volunteers, who rescue people in distress at Sea. In the service of the RNLI, people may be awarded medals and similar, much like the military. These awards form a vital part of the history of a lifeboat station, and it is essential that this information is included.
The award will come with a citation, relevant to the deed, so it is very hard to re-write that citation. If the citation and medal were for a War hero, you wouldn't be changing the text.
And the citation would not be copyright, because it is only right and proper that people should know about the brave deed that took place.
However, to confirm, I have messaged the Media Manager at the RNLI for a definitive answer regarding copyright, and I will let you know.
Meanwhile, ...
I'm not sure why we still have a problem.
I have said that I am happy to rewrite the offending text, and that I would really appreciate it, if you can reinstate what went before please. It is quite a bit of work to just lose, and you did say that you didn't have a problem with it.
Color me puzzled. When I performed the revision deletion, that made it so only admins could see the edit of concern. I fund on that revision deletion so you can see the edit in question, as well as all prior ones which you could've seen anyway. If you are confident that all of the edits up to the one at 9:48 are fine, you can simply restore the article to this version. If I do so, I'm taking responsibility for those edits. If you do it, you are taking responsibility for those edits. By undoing the revision deletion you can also see the edit of concern and you can recover from that what you wish.
I'm fully aware that the text of the citation is best used exactly, not paraphrased but as I've previously discussed, placing it in quotation marks or block quote and providing a reference is acceptable. S Philbrick(Talk)14:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sphilbrick Just a FYI based on this sites7. Intellectual property rights (IPRs) Where it says: 7.1. You acknowledge that all copyright, trade marks (whether registered or not) and other intellectual property rights on our websites and all photographs, footage, designs, images, text, software, data and other material on our websites or generated by our websites are owned by us or our licensors. You are permitted to use our websites and this material only as expressly authorised by us. It is indeed copyrighted text. Nobody (talk) 10:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstood my response to you. I ended my revision deletion so you can see your edit. Your edit summary "undue removal following discussion with remover" leaves the impression he thought I told you it's fine to simply put everything back. I I do understand that using the text of a citation exactly may be warranted, but it:
Must be identified as a quote
must be referenced
You did neither and I see you are continuing with other stations. You were going to check into the possibility that the content is acceptably licensed but I see no evidence that you've confirmed an answer to that issue. As noted above, the contents are specifically copyrighted. I've reverted your edit to Mumbles which is wholly inappropriate. Please correct ever.a or I will undo those edits as well.
I just read through this discussion. Please be aware that Wikipedia tends to be very picky about copyright and so copying material from elsewhere tends to be difficult, even if its authors are fine with it.
But a key point is that plain facts can't be copyrighted and so you seem to have done the right thing by just entering the "bare bones".
I'm still working on the missing lifeboat station articles (2 down, 100 to go!), but something else that needs to be tackled is the D-class lifeboat pages.
It looks like there should be 5 pages. 2 are in good shape (EA16 and IB1) but RFD PB16 and Zodiac III are missing while the Avon S650 is incomplete. If you can share the lifeboat numbers for these then I'll find the time to create the pages. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Geof
I can't share the numbers, I have them on my phone, but for some reason it corrupts when I've previously tried to share.
If you can sort out the headers for rfd pb16 and zodiac III, I'll fill in the detail.
I did that for Avon 650 last week, there are only 4.
Nice work on your new article, Ojsyork. It would benefit from being included in appropriate Wikiprojects. Good job!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bastun}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Broc}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Personal attacks are not welcome on Wikipedia, and your "respectfully" sounds like you lack the respect you sarcastically claim to have. Please check out the Wikipedia policies related to caps and people titles on Wikipedia, as well as dashes, as explained in my edits. You don't own articles on Wikipedia, it is a collaborative effort and you don't sound collaborative at all with your words. Broc (talk) 19:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained, I have spent 10 hours creating this page.
I find it incredibly disrespectful that you think it is OK to make amendments after the page is live for just 15 minutes. OK, you sent me a message, but AFTER your amendments. Why not message first and discuss?
I'm sure if you had created some work, and someone jumped on it after 15 minutes, you too would be suitably aggrieved.
I accept there are Wiki policies, BUT, Wiki also says that its OK to maintain format.
I will have to go check policy on titles, but I don't believe you will be expected to delete Rank, and in the case of the Architect, it is crucial in setting him apart from a Company name.
You are quite correct about collaboration, BUT nitpicking is not creative.
Can I just say, if I have to put endashes instead of hyphens, do you think I have time to keep typing alt 0150?
I was mid reply to your first message, when I was called away, hence why no reasons were given.
I do not wish to upset or insult anyone, I just think you need to have a bit more etiquette about how you jump in on someones hard work.
Rank, title, honour, accreditation, and affiliation[edit source]
In formal address, personal names may be preceded by pre-nominal letters, giving title (e.g. Dr., Captain), or social rank, which is commonly gendered (e.g. Mr., Mrs., Ms., Miss.) and might additionally convey marital status. Ojsyork (talk) 20:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Maybe one thing you did not understand is that content on Wkipedia can be edited by anyone and it's not your own property. Users are not expected to ask for permissions before editing pages, on the contrary, they are asked to be bold. To explain why I edited your page "only after 15 minutes": I am a new page reviewer and as such, I look at the recently created pages to verify that they fulfill Wikipedia quality standards. I found your newly created page to be well written, but it didn't follow Wikipedia's Manual of Style, hence I made minor corrections. In particular:
Hyphens should not be used instead of dashes, see the guideline MOS:DASH;
Titles such as Mr., Dr., ..., should not be used in front of names, see the guideline MOS:MR;
Unnecessary capitalization should be avoided, see MOS:CAPS.
Please read through the three above guidelines that apply for all pages on Wikipedia, then tell me if my edits were against them.
If you think my edits were still wrong, I will be happy to bring the discussion to WT:MOS to get inputs from the community and solve this dispute. Broc (talk) 11:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Broc.
Firstly, I do realise that my work can be changed. However, the work is meant to be a collaborative process of change for the good. So I do expect folk to come and correct grammar, or delete some of my excessive Capitals of which I know I am guilty, etc.
But primarily, I expect changes to be positive additions, adding detail.
I'm sure when Wiki started, it was never intended that there would be an army of folk just sitting there ready to make very minor corrections.
I do object to having my work changed after only a few minutes live. I have encountered this with another new reviewer, and they were asked to back down, as it is considered improper to start amending things when the page is just newly done.
I understand why you made some corrections, and these have remained.
I haven't modified all your emdash entries
I accept I can use too many Capitals, and if that is changed, OK.
I have also explained that Wiki allows you to maintain format. In other words, it might not comply with Wiki standards, but if there is enough set in one style, then that is OK.
I have explained my position on titles, and as I said, I can live without some of the Mr. references...but it is NOT WRONG to include them.
Rank, title, honour, accreditation, and affiliation[edit source]
In formal address, personal names may be preceded by pre-nominal letters, giving title (e.g. Dr., Captain), or social rank, which is commonly gendered (e.g. Mr., Mrs., Ms., Miss.) and might additionally convey marital status.
I will trust that you are happy with this position. I don't have the time to be battling over minutia, and I hope you don't have that time either.
Further to the last message, may I suggest you go look at List of RNLI stations, and starting picking your way through these, and you will find they are all much of a similar format.
You say you kept my changes but in reality you reverted my edit using dashes instead of hyphens (typographical norm on Wikipedia, as said already twice) and another edit where I removed unnecessary capital letters. So if you agree, I will go ahead and fix this.
Regarding your position on titles: have you read MOS:MR? It does not agree with Wikipedia established standards, especially because a text on Wikipedia is not a formal address.
I feel in general we are discussing so much about minor typographical details which would improve readability of the page and not affect your content at all ("Mr." does not convey any additional information to the reader and makes reading more difficult, same applies for excessive capital letters), and I struggle to understand this belligerent attitude.
As you mention, there is an army of WikiGnomes who are dedicated to upholding style standards following Wikipedia:Manual of Style across all pages on the encyclopedia, and I don't understand why they should not be doing this on your pages.
So if it's fine for you, I'll remove excessive caps, "Mr." titles, and replace hyphens with dashes where needed, and I hope that's the end of the discussion. Broc (talk) 12:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your not listening to what I am saying.
I accept that some formatting does not comply with Wiki standards. However, there is room within Wiki for such cases, when all similar pages are of a similar format. Changing all the hyphens to Endashes is just not necessary.
Do you intend to carry this out on another 100 or so pages?
I'd be pleased if you leave it alone, its not doing any harm.
As for deleting Mr , you are completely wrong., Its allowed.As I've pointed out twice.
Rank, title, honour, accreditation, and affiliation[edit source]
In formal address, personal names may be preceded by pre-nominal letters, giving title (e.g. Dr., Captain), or social rank, which is commonly gendered (e.g. Mr., Mrs., Ms., Miss.) and might additionally convey marital status.
Please link the Wikipedia guideline where it says "it's allowed". Because the guideline is MOS:MR (which I have linked three times and you still seem to ignore) that clearly says it should be avoided. Broc (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking at Personal name, at the bottom of the page
Rank, title, honour, accreditation, and affiliation
But I also note your reference to MOS:MR which clearly states After the initial mention, ...
In the context of my article, it is perfectly (and respectfully) allowed to refer to someone as Mr.
You cannot remove Capt. or his service (RN), without which his name loses its meaning. He is not an Army captain, he's a Navy Captain, and it is very relevant in the context of Lifeboats - he is a coastguard Officer with authority.
I also highlighted the Architect, which without the use of Mr, may refer to a Company of Architects, such as Gensler. But in this case, it is very specifically Mr. C. H. Cooke. Ojsyork (talk) 13:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you scroll a bit further up you will find MOS:FULLNAME which shows that also for the first mention, no "Mr." should be used. It simply impacts readability without providing additional information. Personal nameis a Wikipedia page, not a guideline agreed upon by the community. Broc (talk) 13:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bamburgh Castle Lifeboat Station until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
I've just found a pic I took in 2018 of this lifeboat at Wells-next-the-sea. I'll upload it, as it is more complete than the existing ones. Feel free to add it wherever you think, on or off Wikipedia. Its title will be RNLB 37-15 (Tony Holkham 2018). Best wishes, T. Tony Holkham(Talk)15:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping fill in the blansk about Wexford's first boat. I presume it went from Arklow to Newcastle in 1830. Do we know where it was between 1833 and 1858, or after it left Wexford?
In a similar vein, am I right in thinking that the sailing lifeboat that came in 1860 was originally Southwold's first Harriett, or is there another one that I've overlooked? Geof Sheppard (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Arklow boat (Pre-123) was transferred to Newcastle.(1830-33), then Skerries (33-38) and then Rosslare Harbour (38-39). Then sold out of service.
It's detailed on all three pages. I list it as a Norfolk and Suffolk, as that it how its listed in the LBES book (NSP), but if its not, then Arklow, Newcastle and Skerries also need changing.(Not my strong point!)
By the way, Richie stopped including the early boats in the most recent handbooks, which is why I refer to the 2021 handbook all the time. He tells me he may redo in the 2025 book, all down to cost.
As for the Southwold boat, (Pre-246)
Southwold 52-55 (Harriet)
Gt Yarmouth 58-59
Wexford 59-71
At some point it was named St Patrick, so I think its a good bet its when at Wexford.
This kind of highlights why I starting adding Pre numbers, which I realise aren't official, but its as good as we've got now, and makes life a whole lot easier to x-ref.
Thanks, Martin. I don't have a copy of the 2021 Handbook but I know that the contents have varied over the years. I've been piecing things together from RNLI records but they are patchy and sometime inconsistent, especially before the 1860s.
I've not seen any evidence that Plenty ever built anything other than their own design of small boats, whereas the Norfolk & Suffolk came from Lukin's design and was promoted by Beeching, Teasdel and other builders in East Anglia. Most were large, 12- or 14-oared boats designed for sailing. The RNLI don't appear to have ordered any until after the local associations were absorbed when the local stations refused to use Peake's self-righters. Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello Martin. After reading this BBC article this morning, I was surprised that there was no article on this rescue organisation based at Atlantic College (unless I have failed to find it). I'm not doing much editing at the moment, but maybe you'd consider it if you think it is worth creating? Best wishes, Tony. Tony Holkham(Talk)09:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
