Talk:Holmesfield

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Derbyshire Low‑importance

	Derbyshire portal The article on Holmesfield is supported by the Derbyshire WikiProject, which is a collaborative effort to improve the quality and coverage of Derbyshire-related articles on Wikipedia.DerbyshireWikipedia:WikiProject DerbyshireTemplate:WikiProject DerbyshireDerbyshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled]

What is the reference to Morton? Cbdorsett (talk) 11:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

User:AlphaCentauri58 and I have a difference of opinion on some wording in this article and in line with WP:EDITWAR I am seeking a third-party opinion. AlphaCentauri58 is insisting on edits which I maintain are grammatically incorrect, and reverts any attempt to correct them. The wording they are insisting on is:

No markets were held in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, however they recommenced in July 2021. The markets are normally situated at the Angel Inn and St. Swithin's Church Hall.

My problems with this are as follows:

According to numerous grammarians, "due to" should only follow a noun.[1][2][3][4][5]
The phrase beginning "however" is the start of a new sentence and requires a full stop or semicolon (or rewording). AlphaCentauri's preferred wording is clearly a comma splice, and grammatically incorrect. [6][7]
"Situated at" is clumsy and unnecessary verbose, and "held at" is plainer and more idiomatic English.

My preferred wording is:

No markets were held in 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic, but they recommenced in July 2021. The markets are normally held at the Angel Inn and St. Swithin's Church Hall.

I appreciate that this dispute is over minor issues, but I feel strongly that the original version is poor English.

Dave.Dunford (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to keep this as short as possible and devoid of emotion, although this is not easy when faced with the situation at hand. Mr Dunford has explained that he has issues with the use of the word 'however' after a comma, the word 'situated' instead of his preferred word of 'held' and the phrase 'due to' instead of his preferred phrase of 'because of'. In reality these are very minor issues, but there is a principle at stake here and that is to what extent one editor should go to in order to amend/change the script of another. Mr Dunford clearly has experience of Wikipedia (17 years it would seem), whilst I am just a rookie. However his amendments add absolutely nothing to the few lines that I published. They add nothing to the content (which is factually correct) and they add nothing to the reading of the article. My wager would be that 99,999 out of 100,000 people reading my version of the document would get exactly the same meaning and understanding and would not themselves have a preference as to what wording has been used. So why has Mr Dunford amended my article ? Well, this is apparently because Mr Dunford is a Wikigenie! These Wikigenies appear to see themselves as some sort of Wikipedia knight in shining armour moving through the pages to improve them. I do not have a problem with that. Adding citations, removing ambiguity, checking legalities are, I'm sure, extremely valuable to the site. But at what stage does this become too much? At what stage do these amendments start to have a negative impact on Wikipedia, such as creating ill feeling, as is the case here, and deterring future editors who may have a valuable contribution to make? Surely these amendments should have clear and obvious benefits to pages. Looking at Mr. Dunford's talk page I am clearly not the only editor he has upset and I can only say that, as with me, he has, in my opinion, taken a very high handed and arrogant attitude with anyone who dares question his amendments. As I see it the only benefit that the amendments he proposes to my script bring are to his own ego. A desire to stamp his will upon others. I have referred Mr. Dunford to Wikipedia Etiquette (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette ) which states that "Treating others with respect is key to collaborating effectively" and that the Golden Rule is "Treat others the way you would want to be treated". These points seem however to have fallen on deaf ears. When another editor picks up on one of his changes in the discussion "November12 edit" on his talk page his attitude is "It's not my script so I won't be updating it". Clearly he does not like it if he doesn't get his way. There is another rule however within Wikipedia and that relates to common sense. Is it common sense to start an edit war with someone just to try and prove a point or maintain your own preferences when the amendments actually add no tangible benefit to the page ? Even more so when it is not your script. My own opinion is that Mr. Dunford has lost sight of etiquette and common sense in his role as a Wikigenie. Whilst ever there are people on the site upsetting others seemingly for their own ego Wikipedia will not be a pleasant community to enjoy. Whether Mr, Dunford's purist grammatical amendments are right or wrong they effectively add nothing to the page. Points of grammar often come down to preferences and I see no reason why I should accept such trivial, points scoring amendments to my scriptAlphaCentauri58 (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you are misunderstanding what a "script" is in the context that you have picked up on. A script is not just the text of a Wikipedia article, like the article about Holmesfield. It is a piece of computer code written to do a particular job (in this case, converting hyphens to en dashes). I stated that I wasn't going to change it because a) it isn't my script (the editor I was talking to wrongly assumed it was) and b) I don't have the technical understanding to change the code even if I wanted to.

Secondly, for the matter in hand. Your edits introduced grammatical errors (not just "matters of opinion") into the Holmesfield article, which I'm trying to fix. That's it. That's my entire motivation as a wikignome (a light-hearted self-description which you seem to have taken waaay too seriously). The Holmesfield article is on my watchlist (like a lot of other Derbyshire-related articles) and I keep an eye on them and tidy up when people introduce additions. Your addition was fine, and useful, it just contained a couple of minor grammatical errors, which I corrected. That shouldn't be a big deal. I'm a bit of a grammar nerd, sure – I see a mistake, and I fix it. You seem to think that I'm motivated by some sort of crusade against you and that I'm desperate to show you up, but that really isn't the case. To err is human – we all make mistakes, we all have different skills. I have editorial experience, which I'm trying to use to make Wikipedia better. That's what editors do. If you are going to react like this every time your text is edited, can I respectfully suggest that maybe a collaborative encyclopedia isn't for you? Authors get edited all the time; it's part of the editorial process, it's not a criticism. I've tried to follow Wikipedia policies, remain polite and explain my reasoning (with references to the policies) all along, so I'm frankly bewildered by your furious reaction. Dave.Dunford (talk) 11:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]