Talk:Twikker

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 October 2006. The result of the discussion was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE.

This article was nominated for deletion on 15 November 2006. The result of the discussion was SPEEDY KEEP.

Magazines

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Twikker is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

What is the point of this? L.J.Skinner, talk to me 01:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of anything? Twikker is kept in the National Copyright Libraries in the UK, so I guess someone values its publication. There are former editors in Who's Who (admittedly for other achievements!). Ewen 07:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a slightly pointless article is all! L.J.Skinner, talk to me 17:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your opinion. It is a rare one and ought to be treasured 8-) Ewen 20:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what is the point? you jest, surely?

twikker was/ has been an integral part of Sheffield/the Sheffield universities' lives for many many years, I don't see how it can be dismissed as pointless.

It also encompasses something of a nostalgia, for the "old modes of speech" in the Sheffield area, coming from the saying "in 't'wikker in Sheffild, wheer 't'watter runs oer't weir" * translation:- "in the Wicker, (a street in Sheffield) in Sheffield where the water runs over the weir" please don't delete the original "wiki" piece about it, as it is a little piece of local history.

Various tags

I've added references and removed the light-hearted Hitler link. This should deal with the unverified, unsourced, NPOV, neutrality, importance and tone tags. I shall remove the tags in a few days if there are no objections. Ewen 07:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twikker 1991 image

I have contacted the artist D'Israeli who is happy for this image to be used. Please could someone clarify if I need to do anything else to secure this image's place on wikipedia? Does the artist himself need to release it to the public domain? As far as I can ascertain (and I have checked) there is no dispute with the artist over including this image. Ewen 11:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the image falls under allowed fair use. So no release into the public domain is required, and in fact whether the artist does or doesn't want to allow its use here actually doesn't matter. (Well if was against it and made a stink about it, maybe.) Now, public domain images are greatly preferred, and if you want to go to the trouble of having it released under the GDFL (which is essentially public domain), there is a procedure, message me for details. Herostratus 23:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haig beer?

It says that the "Don't be vague, ask for Haig" references an ad campaign for a beer. At least here in the states, it was for Haig (acutally Haig & Haig) scotch. Maybe it's different in Britain, so I didn't change it, but if it's also a scotch over there, it should be corrected. Herostratus 07:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right. How could I have been so dull? BTW Thanks for taking the time to look at the deletion debate. Points taken! Ewen 12:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review

A big plus of deletion reviews is that articles such as this are brought to one's attention. I would certainly have voted 'keep' even it had been 3 lines - this is an article of great potential. Thanks also to Herostratus for a masterly summary of the (first) debate. I will see if the University of Sheffield can provide any references. -- roundhouse 14:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be doing the article a great service if you could reference anything. Thank you! The Sheffield City Star might be a place to search, or failing that the Students' newspaper Darts. The Mag was banned in 1950, 1975 and 1987 which may have made headlines around each October... Ewen 14:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This might involve leaving my desk, a great hardship. (The Star is to some extent online but doesn't go back before 2000‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]} or so.) I have looked on http://nlc.oldedwardians.org.uk/ (for which I have all mags from about 1930 to 1970) but a search gives nothing for Twikker (tho it used to be on sale at the school) and only one mention of the phrase "university Rag" (in http://www.oldedwardians.org.uk/nlc/mags/48Dec.html). It would certainly have been mentioned in the Star most years. roundhouse 15:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to leave my desk too: Drive up the M4, M25, M1 to Sheffield and then hit the libraries. I've been tempted! Good luck with the research, anyway. Did you know the 1966 editor, one Peter Mortimer, is still going strong as a writer and publisher in the North-East? Here's an example: [1] Ewen 15:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twikker rock climb

Please, do not ad this reference unless you can find proof the rock climb is named after the magazine!
I followed the link in the reference to the Twikker rock climb, and at no point did it mention that it was named after the magazine, so it is unverifiable. The inclusion of presumably in the article itself only supports that this is poor citing. I added the {{not verified}} tag, and a little note saying . I felt that this was reasonable action. So, may I ask, why did Ewen put the poor reference back, and add the note . (see here)? We cannot jump to conclusions like this - that is why we need sources! What was your intention in added this sarcastic comment Ewen? L.J.Skinner_{something to say?} 17:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you found the comment sarcastic, that was not intended. Until someone suggests a reason why the rock climb is called Twikker that doesn't involve the rag magazine called Twikker then I think it's a very safe bet that this is the case. I mean, have you proved that every reference on the Sheffield United page is actually to that Sheffield United? Perhaps there's some other Sheffield United? You can't prove that there isn't but it's very unlikely! Ewen 19:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is on you as editor to prove your facts are true. It is not on me (pointing out possible inaccuracies) to prove they are false. Check out What wikipedia is, noting specifically WIKIPEDIA IS NOT FOR UNCITED MATERIAL, and look at "The Policy" points 1-3. Fact need to be sourced to remain in an encyclopedia. I shall remove your flimsy facts untill you have proof. L.J.Skinner_{something to say?} 20:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it, or is it not a 'fact' that it is very probably not a coincidence that the climb named 'Twikker' in 1956 by Dave Johnson of the Sheffield University Mountaineering Club was named after the Sheffield University Rag Magazine called 'Twikker'; there being no other entity called Twikker known to any wikipedian researcher? Ewen 20:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Lewis is right. However coïncidental it may seem, wikipedia works with sources, or in some events irrefutable facts. You have to source your comments and/or provide references for the article. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 21:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, guess so. The policy asks for references when it is likely that a fact will be challenged. I didn't think this one would be challenged, you know? Ewen 21:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what your saying and would probably believe you, afterall, most edits are made in good faith (oh! a policy) and true, unfortunately, the encyclopedic factor of the project is often forgotten. It's probably best to keep the edit, but hide it in a coment tag so it is not lost but available when a source or reference is found. Howzat? Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 21:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was writing roughly the same as the good Capt, but the edits conflicted. Let us get some refs. roundhouse 21:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed this section from the article. It has little relevance to the article and so really isn't worth fighting over. —JeremyA 23:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Research:

[2]

Members of the UK Climbing forum suggest that it is named for either Twikker or The Wicker. Apparently it was first climbed (and therefore named) by a member of the Sheffield University Mountaineering Club

[3]

First ascent by Dave Johnson in 1956 (presumably he named it 'Twikker'). First free ascent by Tom Proctor in 1975

I'm still of the opinion that because 'Twikker' yields google hits for only (a) the Rag Magazine and (b) the rock climb, then it is worth mentioning the climb... Ewen 13:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cutty_sark#Trivia seems to set some sort of precedent for including obviously related but unverified material...? Ewen 14:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did find an interesting snippet by complete chance - someone asked me for info on Hector Twyford's children, one of whom went to KES and then the Sheffield College of art. I did a google search on 'Kit Twyford' and up came the rock climb. Unfortunately I can't find Kit. roundhouse 15:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latest sources

Thank you Lewis for finding the sources you did. Very, very valuable, especially the original name of Twikker.

I'm not sure the 1949 ban date is accurate because it's the 1950 Twikker that's missing from all archives. The source has at least one date wrong elsewhere - Nirvana playing in the late 90s? Kurt Cobain died in 1994! I think they mean the 1950 ban. Perhaps some other dates are not quite right (Rag stopped in 1942 but the 1943 Twikker published, 1925 start date according to Cambridge but 1926 given here). Hey! These are minor quibbles! Great sources!

Ewen 13:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness. I had a feeling Lewis was a potential ally re this page, but this exceeds all expectations. (It might be a confusion between academic years and calendar years, eg the 50 Twikker might relate to the 49/50 academic year, or the 50/51 year. Or the published reputable source might be wrong.) And the sources are of more general interest too. roundhouse 15:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's odd. It seems to use the later date in some cases and the earlier date in others. Cambs think 1950 banned and the uni source uses the earlier 1949 date, whereas the Camb library says in starts in 1925 whilst the uni source uses the later 1926 date. Confused! The preceding comment contained scenes of a violent or sexual nature, and should not have been viewed by young children. L.J.Skinner_WOT? 17:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still unsure of the 1949 ban. One of Lewis' new sources gives the cover, which is definitely in the Cambridge archives. I didn't think it was at all racy, not even by the standards of 1947 and 1948 (which I also read - and nicked some jokes for Twikker 1990!) The 1950 one is the missing one and the 1951 editor writes about the 1950 ban as the most severe. Good to see the photos and copies of the covers; especially Harry Secombe receiving Twikker 1958 outside the London Palladium. Ewen 15:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roundhouse may have it; I know that in the 1980-1990's Rag Week was in Term 1, but the older references seem to have May Day as the focus of events. Maybe the 1949-50 edition was banned in 1950 and the 1950-51 edition was prevented from being published with Ragout in its place? Someone would have to dig out archive newspapers to find out for sure. Ewen 18:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember the source, but one old editor told me how many extra sales they reckoned for each pulpit condemnation. He mentioned that some more worldly vicars would deliberately condemn Twikker knowing that it would then raise more for charity, especially if some of the charities were suggested by the vicar! Ewen 18:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very cool! Sounds quite savvy on both their parts actually. The preceding comment contained scenes of a violent or sexual nature, and should not have been viewed by young children. L.J.Skinner_WOT? 22:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent issues of Twikker

I can't immediately find any info on when it stopped being published - it seems to have been 1926-91 with the odd missing year and then?? -- roundhouse 15:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have been published in 2005 - [4] -- roundhouse 18:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Twikker 1991.png

Image:Twikker 1991.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]