No edit summary |
93gregsonl2 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 187: | Line 187: | ||
::[[Blackburn]] is defintely a piece of low-hanging fruit that I think ought to be prioritised. --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 20:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC) |
::[[Blackburn]] is defintely a piece of low-hanging fruit that I think ought to be prioritised. --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 20:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC) |
||
==Farewell== |
|||
Because of an increasing pressure from other Wikipeidans from this WikiProject I have now decided to take a seat on the back row and ''I will no longer be an active user on this WikiProject'''. I have decided to take a break and let others who are more expericed than me on Wikipedia to do the more important edits on this WikiProject. I will however keep doing minor edits and putiing Lancashire and Cumbrian articles that are reelated to this WikiProject under it's scope. I am now going to focus my attention on improving articles around my area: [[Banks, Lancashire]], [[Mere Brow]], [[Holmes]], [[Tarleton]] and [[Hesketh Bank]] so they will become at least a C/B grade on the quailty scale. |
|||
I will be back contributing to this WikiProject soon, when I get more experience and I wish all of you good luck on this WikiProject. |
|||
Lastly, I would like to apolgize to all of the contributors of this page for being a little bossy and just being a little stupid. I understand now. Thanks and farewell. [[User:93gregsonl2|93gregsonl2]] ([[User talk:93gregsonl2|talk]]) 20:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:48, 17 September 2009
Suggestions
Hello WP:LANCS!
To keep this new project fruitful, inclusive and active, I want to make a radical suggestion that would be too big an issue to raise once the project is truly up and running....
I want to suggest that this WikiProject be rebranded to the "Wikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria". The reason for this is that both Lancashire and Cumbria (especially poor Cumbria) are rural counties with quite small populations, and thus, very small amounts of editors when compared to Liverpool and Manchester. A merger of the two would allow for greater participation and would help steer the project clear of inactivity and redundancy (as has been the case for the Dorset, Lincolnshire, Cheshire and other projects). The Yorkshire WikiProject is effectively a merger of North, South, West and East Yorkshire and would still cover a larger area than the combined Lancs and Cumbrian project.
What do we think? --Jza84 | Talk 21:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yes! Let us in! I'm in Furness, which was Lancaster until a few years ago anyway, so it makes sense to merge the two. J Milburn (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Good idea to combine the two; there's often quite a bit of overlap and there's a risk that Cumbria will otherwise be left project-less. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Seems like a good idea I was thinking the other day why there wasnt a Cumbria project but it does make sense to make it a joint one with Lancashire Penrithguy (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
The public has spoken and I will merge the WikiProjects of Lancashire and Cumbria. I will do it as soon as I can.--93gregsonl2 (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
HELP!
To make this project work we need to have a box to be put on every article that relates to Lancashire/Cumbria and to show that the article is under the WikiProject:Lancashire and Cumbria scope. Just like these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lancashire (I'm talking about the boxes that are in the scope of WikiProject:England and UK geography. WE NEED ONE FOR WIKIPROJECT:LANCASHIRE AND CUMBRIA. Please could someone give me a link to make one of these boxes so this WikiProject can finally move along. --93gregsonl2 (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've set up Template:WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria. To add it to talk pages, all you have to do is copy and paste {{WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria}} or {{WPL&C}}. To assess an article, add "|class=stub/start/C/B/list" (use as appropriate, not all of them). To add importance, add "|importance=low/mid/high/top" (again, use as appropriate, not all of them at once). There could be a couple of thousand articles out there relating to Lancashire and Cumbria, so it might be best to fill out a bot request rather than tag articles by hand. We'll still have to assess for importance and class ourselves, however it would make the job a bit easier. Nev1 (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks you very much, I will add a pic and do the quilty scale and importntance scale now.--93gregsonl2 (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I can not add a picture that works so could someone put the Lancashire red rose image on it please (the image can be found on the projectpage. I will continue tommorow and hopefully the lancashire ans cumbria project page will be up and running. For now I need to go to bed.--93gregsonl2 (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've taken care of it. After a bit of playing around using the preview button, it turned out you only needed to specify the name of the file to be used. Nev1 (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Project logos
I made the following logos for this project:
-
A combination of Lancastrian and Cumbrian icons...
-
...superimposed on a flag for North West England. :)
I have tested one of them on the main page (for all to see), but I don't insist we use either of them - they're just ideas. We could use maps or some kind of faux-coat of arms, or anything anyone thinks of. :) --Jza84 | Talk 00:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- I like No. 1 (on the left) - eye-catching and effective. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, the one of the left is much more striking at the size we have to use for the project banners. Nev1 (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
That pic is great... now start adding them to talk pages related to Lancashire and Cumbria. WE ARE NOW UP AND RUNNING. --93gregsonl2 (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Userbox?
We need a userbox for this WikiProject so people who are part of this WikiProject can add it to their userpages. Can anyone make one please. Thanks. I know I should do things like this myself (since I am the creator of this WikiProject) but I am new to Wikipedia and I am just learning. --93gregsonl2 (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Done. See {{User WP Lancashire Cumbria}}. Just add "{{User WP Lancashire Cumbria}}" to your userpage to display. :) --Jza84 | Talk 22:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Greetings!
Nice to see a WikiProject for Lancashire finally! :) I've already added my name to the participants list and subscribed the project for a cleanup listing. Other things that might come in useful would be a new articles listing generated by User:AlexNewArtBot, and a popular pages list. I can contribute photos from the West Lancs area and also know how to code templates, so if there's anything I can help with then please give me a shout. Small-town hero (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Tagging and assessment
Congratulations on the new WP. One of the biggest tasks to begin with is tagging and assessing articles so that they become part of the WikiProject. I recently got WP:MILLS up and running so have experience of this. I've just tagged List of windmills in Lancashire for this WP. I was wondering why you haven't got an assessment section on your project page. Anyway, good luck with the project. Mjroots (talk) 09:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I hope I'm not stepping on anyone's toes, or jumping the gun, but to help us get a handle on this tagging and assessment and to see just how the project's progressing I've added a new Assessment and progress of articles section to the main page, based on the one used by the GM project. It already makes interesting reading; of the 101 articles tagged so far there are two FAs and one GA. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia article on Lostock Hall
To whom it may concern,
This message was originally posted on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography#Wikipedia_article_on_Lostock_Hall, and with helpful advice from User:Jza84 I have now posted a copy to here.
As a resident of the village of Lostock Hall, Preston for the past 30 years, and also access to many historical facts on the village; I have extended the information on the original article with more facts, history of the village, and useful information. I hope that this is OK with members of the WikiProject UK geography group. I would like it if I would be permitted to continue my work on this page, and work to make the page more detailed to provide a more in-depth article on Lostock Hall. Does anyone have objections to this? If so, please let me know in due course via my talk page. Also I have noticed that the article has yet to receive a quality scale rating, as per WikiProject article quality grading scheme. With the information that was in the original article (prior to my extensive clean up operation), I would have said it was a Category:Start-Class articles. However, since all the extensive new material that I've added to the article (with some help from a fellow wikipedia friend of mine), I would like to nominate the Lostock Hall article to either a Category:B-Class articles or a Category:C-Class articles. Kindest regards, Gareth aka Pr3st0n (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've only glanced at the article, but it looks like you've got the right idea with structure, content, formatting etc. I'd like to see a few more inline citations (such as in the industry section), but it's a good start. It's perhaps unnecessary to mention public houses, but you can get ideas for what else to add from WP:UKCITIES (I think the main stuff missing is demography, economy, and geography). You don't need our permission to work on the article, and since you're doing a good job, please continue :-) I've assessed the article as C-class as it's decently referenced and has a good structure. To be a B-class it would need the sections I mentioned earlier, but it's not far off. Working with the statistics to create economy and demography sections can be a bit of a drag, so I can sort those out for you if you want; they would be fairly generic stuff (take a look at Partington, Greater Manchester#Demography for what to expect). Nev1 (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Nev1, thanks for getting back to me, and the praise and recognition too ;-). As I live in Lostock Hall, i was having a nosey on wikipedia to see what it had on the village, and to my shock the original article was very "slim-line" so to speak. So I took liberty and pride to add more detailed information so that other people could see the "real" Lostock Hall in the article. The references on public houses where in the original context, I just cleaned it up a little. Most of the public houses in Lostock Hall have a lot of historical background. I could contact local residents and publicans for those establishments on more information, and historical facts if you like. Would be good for users to learn more about these buildings too. The village itself now has more take-away places than ever before - but I'm not sure whether to reference this in the article. I will continue to work on the other sections that you noted, and will include them in due course. Again, thanks for the praise, help, and advice. Kindest regards, Gareth aka Pr3st0n (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, Lostock Hall isn't listed in the spreadsheets from ONS I usually use as sources (as in the Partington, Greater Manchester, article). The link in the article used as a reference for the 2001 population should have more info on the economy and demography of the ward, but the website seems to be having problems at the moment. The take-aways probably aren't worth mentioning, unless the increase was mentioned in the local news. This link is a PDF (2mb) of all the listed buildings in South Ribble; I can't see any explicit mention of Lostock Hall but it might be worth checking since you'll recognise local names I won't. Nev1 (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for supplying that PDF link. I have taken a look at it, and 5 buildings on Todd Lane (2 on page 13, and 3 on page 14) are buildings in Lostock Hall. Todd Lane North and Todd Lane South are both parts of Lostock Hall, and also have Lostock Hall in the address codes. I live around the corner from Todd Hall (Todd Lane North) and can ask the owners if up-to-date photos can be taken for this Wikipedia project. As for the Population census, I use to work for local government, and have contacts who should be able to obtain for updated figure for the article in question. I have made a personal list of things to do, to help me with what could become a major, but enjoyable project. (Pr3st0n (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC))
- I've now added even more extensive details on the Lostock Hall article, including a table of listed buildings in Lostock Hall, a geography section, demography, and a population chart. I can take photos of the listed buildings if required (with permission of the owners of course), and also the population table needs some more work on it, as I'm having problems tracking down populations stats online. I will be visiting my local museum to view their hard copy of these records, so that they can be added. (Pr3st0n (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC))
- Lostock Hall is clearly a labour of love,and who knows, it may hook you into writing about other places or things as well. I started out with the intention of improving an article on a local park, but now here I am, seriously considering the possibility of helping to get Blackburn, a place I can't remember ever visiting, listed as a GA. :-)
- To be a little bit more serious though, I'd strongly suggest that you take a look at wikipedia articles on similarly sized English villages, especially if they've been listed as GA/FA, if you haven't already. It's important as well to keep your personal voice out of the article; I was quite struck by seeing this in the lead, for instance: "Similarly, to the north, Leyland Road leads to the district of Penwortham, this boundary being similarly vague - most locals could not point out the dividing line." I don't doubt that you're right about what most locals might or might not recognise, but you've got got to be careful that what's supposed to be an encyclopedia article doesn't end up as a personal essay incorporating your own original research. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Jza84, this article is most definitely a labour of love for me. However, the reference about "Similarly, to the north, Leyland Road leads to the district of Penwortham, this boundary being similarly vague - most locals could not point out the dividing line." was not part of my work. That context was in the original article. In fact the first 2 opening paragraphs are the original work. The rest of it however is my work. I always avoid using personal voice in an article. I'm currently working on a complete rewording of the opening paragraphs, which will therefore mean I have basically re-written the article from scratch. (Pr3st0n (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC))
- I posted my reply above thinking it was in response to a question Jza84 posted, hadn't noticed that the original question came from Malleus, I apologise for that Malleus. (Gareth aka Pr3st0n (talk) 23:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC))
:Got a question to ask if I may? Now that I've taken advice, and read the article on Wormshill, which has certainly inspired me to extend this Lostock Hall article into greater detail. I'm now wondering is this article getting closer to becoming a GA-class grade? I've increase the details of this article, by adding more in-depth information, including images of churches, and a Grade II listed building, along with full population records between 1891 - 2001. Would love to know if my hard work has paid off, and this article is growing ever closer to the magical GA, and better still, FA grades. (Pr3st0n (talk) 04:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC))
- Scrapped that last idea, as I've read Wikipedia:GA. Pr3st0n (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Importance scale
We've not yet got an importance scale, and it's not the most important thing to address, but I was wondering where boroughs such as West Lancashire and South Ribble fit in? I was just about to tag all the boroughs in Lancashire and Cumbria for the project but wasn't sure how important they are. They're a lot of them, so "top" seems like overkill, but "mid" feels like it undervalues their importance. Nev1 (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
My first thoughts
It's good to see this project and I've signed up to it.
However I do have some concerns that we may be trying to run before we've learned to walk.
I am particularly concerned about assessment of articles. Yes, we should start adding the project banner to article talk pages, but we shouldn't be assessing articles until we have decided, as a project, how to do it. Importance is something we need to decide upon collectively, relative to our project. Other projects have importance scales. I'd suggest we look at some of our neighbouring county projects, copy their importance scale and then adapt it for our own use. I'm no expert on this, but I understand that standards of quality apply across the whole of Wikipedia and it's not down to individual projects to impose their own scales (although they may be able to tweak a bit). The quality assessment criteria are at WP:ASSESS.
I'd suggest that inexperienced assessors should begin by just copying a quality assessment from any other project that has assessed the same article and not to quality-assess themselves, yet. After you've seen a number of other assessments you'll gain the experience to do it yourself. In my own case, even though I've been editing for several years now, I feel qualified only to issue "stub" and "start" assessments. I feel I haven't yet studied the assessment criteria closely enough to issue higher assessments.
As this project is still only a few days old, the main benefit of tagging articles at this early stage will be to advertise our presence and attract new members (regardless of assessment), so it would be a good idea to concentrate at first on tagging the most popular articles, e.g. about the cities, largest towns and major tourist attractions in the two counties.
I'd prefer it if the project userbox omitted the word "proud". I simply want to state my membership without expressing an opinion on any pride or lack of pride!
As for {{commonscat}}
, you shouldn't normally be linking to commons:Category:Lancashire or commons:Category:Cumbria (except for articles about a whole county) but rather to some other category that is directly relevant to the article in question.
I'm not sure the value of listing stub articles on the project page (unless the idea is to single out a handful of articles for special attention). If we list them all, there will be hundreds of them (exactly 899 as I write this). We might as well just paste in the links Category:Lancashire geography stubs and Category:Cumbria geography stubs.
At some point we'll need to discuss the thorny issue of historic county boundaries, to decide what is within the scope of our project. This is really an issue for Lancashire rather than Cumbria. In other words, how to deal with places that were inside Lancashire before 1974, but outside both Lancashire and Cumbria today. In line with Wikipedia policy, such places ought, as a general rule, to be outside the scope of our project (they come under neighbouring county projects instead), but we might want to discuss limited exceptions for historical articles specifically about places, buildings, organisations or people that ceased to exist before 1974. I'm not expressing any view on this at the moment, but at some point in the future we'll need to grasp this nettle.
Sorry if my first post here sounds all negative. I hope to make lots of positive contributions in the future! I have lots of other things to do outside Wikipedia so my contributions may be limited. -- Dr Greg talk 19:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- These are valid points. I think I agree with most if not all. Regarding the issue of pre-74 counties, I see no reason why editors can't help out on say, history of Manchester, but certainly any edits have to be within the bounds of WP:UCC. I wouldn't expect say, editors removing WP:GM, WP:CHESHIRE or WP:YORKSHIRE templates from talk pages and replacing them with WP:LANCS templates-that would be distruptive. Certainly something like history of Lancashire should be within the scope of this project, and I think it would be quite proper for things like Cumberland and Westmoreland to be under it too, if that helps.
- This project shouldn't become a kind of Afghan mountain cave where plots to strike at modern units are planned. The whole point should be to raise the standard of Lancashire's and Cumbria's content out of the dark ages of Wikipedia, because presently they are pretty bad. --Jza84 | Talk 20:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Reply
I agree with most things you are saying.
We have discussed where we should put the articles in our importance scale. We have mostly agreed to these:
Villges/Hamlets should be low
Small towns should be mid
Large towns/cities should be high
The counties of Lancashire and Cumbria should be top
B/A roads should be low
Motoways should be mid (except M6 should be high
We have not yet discussed other things eg. buildings, but we shall do it the future.
I have been thinking weather or not to incorporate historic lancashire in in, but if you think of it, the article count would be HUGE. So personally we should discuss this matter with WikiProject Greater Manchester and Merseyside to see if we can put the cities of Liverpool and Manchseter ONLY within our scope.93gregsonl2 (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Tagging places that have been historically in Lancashire would get a resounding "No" from me. The point of tagging is to encourage editors with some interest in an area to improve articles about that area. Who in this project would be interested in helping with Stretford, or Trafford Park, for instance, both of which were once in Lancashire? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- I definitely do not think we should adopt Liverpool, Manchester or any other article (outside the current ceremonial counties) about current geography. That would just go against established Wikipedia policy. I was referring only to the possibility of historical-only articles. We might decide to reject that too. But there's no hurry yet, let's concentrate on other things for now. -- Dr Greg talk 20:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
And that thing you said about the stubs. I 100% agree, I did not see that. But imptove it straight away.93gregsonl2 (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC): Done.
As for the commons link. I DID NOT DO THAT. I made sure to put no links to commons on it, but some idiot reversed it. I will get on to it now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93gregsonl2 (talk): Done.
Biographies
While we're discussing what is and isn't within the scope of this project, what about biography articles of Lancashire and Cumbria people? Small-town hero (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- A question that has been pondered by more than one project recently. The consensus that emerged (although it hasn't been codified) is that projects can tag biographies of people born within their boundaries (eg: Andrew Flintoff) or people strongly associated with the area (eg: Edmund Crouchback was the first Earl of Lancaster, although he was born in London). The second criteria leaves a lot to editor discretion. Nev1 (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Importance scale
Why don't we just use the same assessment scale as the Greater Manchester project? Why reinvent the wheel? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- A good idea I think, WP:YORKS also uses it and cross-project standardisation would be nice. Nev1 (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Preston's assessment
Earlier today Preston was assessed as a GA, but it has now been down ranked to B; on investigation it appears that the article was never reviewed at GAN and was therefore never listed as a GA.
Are we all agreed that the GA and FA assessments are only to be the result of an article passing either GAN or FAC respectively? I certainly bloody well hope so. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Definately-it's not within our remit to assess our own articles after B-class. For those who don't know, it's only an independent assessment that can rank an article at GA or FA level. It's an easy mistake, I guess, if one doesn't know.
- Incidently, Blackburn almost got to GA level once. That article may therefore be a suitable project aim for it's first GA since formation? --Jza84 | Talk 20:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Farewell
Because of an increasing pressure from other Wikipeidans from this WikiProject I have now decided to take a seat on the back row and I will no longer be an active user on this WikiProject'. I have decided to take a break and let others who are more expericed than me on Wikipedia to do the more important edits on this WikiProject. I will however keep doing minor edits and putiing Lancashire and Cumbrian articles that are reelated to this WikiProject under it's scope. I am now going to focus my attention on improving articles around my area: Banks, Lancashire, Mere Brow, Holmes, Tarleton and Hesketh Bank so they will become at least a C/B grade on the quailty scale.
I will be back contributing to this WikiProject soon, when I get more experience and I wish all of you good luck on this WikiProject.
Lastly, I would like to apolgize to all of the contributors of this page for being a little bossy and just being a little stupid. I understand now. Thanks and farewell. 93gregsonl2 (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)