This is an archive of past discussions with User:Kudpung. 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.
Catching up
Ooh, a blank page, it feels all fresh and clean! Sorry for not replying to various points - I've been trying to catch up on other parts of Wikipedia since the Malvern GA review.
The review: Yes, I think it probably was a little tougher than strictly necessary, but I'd agree that the article is better for it. It makes a good baseline for the rest of the project - it's very useful to have a reference piece, so we can all check 'how does the Malvern article do it?' when editing elsewhere. Some GAs are tougher than others - so long as ours are not unfair, we take what comes.
Thanks for the newsletter - it's a good idea to try to spur a few more editors into action. Maybe when we seriously start work on Worcester that will bring out a few more. For the meetup I won't make any promises, but I'll try to get back to Blighty for it - it would be interesting to put faces to some names.
The Worcester pronunciation debacle was, well, silly. I understand why you don't want to spend your free time doing what you do for a living - in the end it's a minor point, so I guess we live with knowing it's wrong and carry on with other things. We gave it a shot. I do like the myth of a universal English!
Malvern/peacock: I initially had the same thought as you, but Jarry1250 turned out to be a genuine, good-faith editor. He did have a point. I'm happy to keep tweaking the article as needed, although I don't expect any major changes to it. I've noticed your recent spat with the Milford Haven GA review, but decided to stay well out of it ;-) Wikipedia's a big place - don't get drawn into those daft arguments that seem to happen here - spend your effort where it's appreciated.
Hi your post on Stavros1 talk page re above image, I think the deletion tag refers to File:NT Logo.png see previous entry on Stavros1 talk page. Regard --palmiped | Talk 20:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Watchlist
As I did not get a reply to last note on a watchlist for the Worcestershire project, I took the liberty of proceeding to produce one while I was updating the others. You can check changes to articles tagged with the project template using this link. Keith D (talk) 01:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
The major active participants of the Worcs proj have all the related pages on their watchlists, so if you did not get a reply, it can be taken as a tacit consensus that your contributions are fine, and very much welcome. Furthermore, thanks for demonstrating the special 'watchall' feature - I didn't actually know such a thing existed. Extremely useful. if you are particularly interested in the county, have you considered joining the Wikipedia:WikiProject Worcestershire? It borders some of the counties you already work on and of which some of us are members too. We don't actually have a sysop among the Worcs participants.--Kudpung (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I am not really available for Worcestershire cannot really spread myself even thinner than I am at the moment. I just thought that I could help with the watchlist as I run several others, usually updated on a Friday, and it is no trouble to add an additional one to the list. Though I did spot some unreverted vandalism when I tested it out. Keith D (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes - I know all this of course, it's very confusing and that's why I pointed it out and made the analogy with Malvern.It had even been suggested that Malvern was not a place at all and should be merged to an article about an area of the town that apart from its name, has no official standing. So when I was in the UK I had a meeting with the town clerk to clear it all up. The discussion was also a very good introduction to the nomenclature and complexities of the various tiers of regional, county, borough, district and local government, which in fact most citizens themselves do not fully understand. My posting on the Milford GA review talk page gives more detail.--Kudpung (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Understood. Thanks for all your hard work. I haven't added to it myself as I just have nothing more to include. I'll nudge silktork, and have him make a decision one way or the other. Hope to bump into you on future articles. FruitMonkey (talk) 07:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
That's fine Kudpung, the article wasn't a major focus for me either but I wanted to chip in and lend a hand. I may be back if momentum gathers again. Thanks for your input.--Pondle (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Worchester University
Worchester University appears to be one of the all-too-numerous non-legitimate "universities" that use names similar to those of legitimate academic institutions -- probably to scam unsuspecting potential students. Since a Wikipedia search on its name returns the result "Did you mean: Worcester University" (which resolves to University of Worcester), I thought it would be worthwhile to put a hatnote on University of Worcester to alert those potential scam victims that this might not be the article they were looking for. The hatnote has nothing to with the University of Worcester, but rather with another outfit that may be posing as the University of Worcester. --Orlady (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
(sorry to butt in but...) How about removing the redirect for Worchester University (that's weird to type), and starting a stub page. It could say something simple like "WU is a university in Panama City". If there is a reliable source saying the university is a bit shady, cite it. GyroMagician (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. Actually, there is no redirect for Worchester University. It's just that if a person searches Wikipedia for that name, they end up at University of Worcester. My hatnote said "Not to be confused with Worchester University, an unaccredited institution doing business in Panama." There probably isn't enough information to support an article on Worchester University. An anon added Worchester to List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning, which is full of entries for shadowy outfits that cannot support articles, but that might be "enrolling" many "students". Typically, the only information that exists is a self-promotional website (in this instance, www.worchester.edu) and a reliable-source database that says the outfit is not an authorized university. --Orlady (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Until ORlady has created that stub following GyroMagician's excellent suggestion, the issue has been resolved using Wkipedia logic, technology, andWP:UCS.--Kudpung (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Kudpung. Thanks for the welcome bizzo following my signing up for helpings of Worcestershire. You know, it was only at that exact moment that the penny dropped about Worcestershire sauce. Before then, it was just bottles of sauce that I grew up with, dousing pies, chips, cakes, sleeping cats, and anything else that didn't move and thus might qualify as food. Of course, some things might qualify as food because they move, but it gets difficult not to spill the sauce when eating on the run.
Now, like the kid who has seen a cow for the first time and makes the connection with supermarket milk, I understand something deeply meaningful about the universe in which I exist. Regards. Wotnow (talk) 06:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Updated user page
Hi again Kudpung. I have amended my user page to take into account some new learning about these list-defined reference bizzos. The whole page has been amended to take into account, and move away from, the template {{r}} controversy. But more importantly, I have created a new section where I try to explain how I actually implement list-defined references. That itself arose from a revelation as I worked through some articles and added the <ref name=/> templates. First, I realised that when I do implement list-defined references, I do it in a slightly different order to how I previously described. I don't do the inline reference first. Having created or amended the reference section to allow list-defined references to work, I first create the full reference that I want to show up, just as I would if I was embedding it in the article text. Only then do I place the inline bit into the article text.
Now, as a result of the recent exercises I've been doing, I realise how easy it is to generate the inline bit if using the <ref name=/> template. To me, it's actually simpler than the {{r}} template, because you create the reference first, just as you would anyway, no matter what style you use. Then you give it a refname and then just copy and paste the <ref name=Refname> into the article, add a forward slash (/) thus <ref name=Refname/>, and presto, it works. The great irony is that this 'revelation' only came to me after all the recent developments. And it only came to me of course because I went through the exercise of replacing a number of {{r}} templates with <ref name=/> templates, and reflecting on what I'd learned from the whole exercise.
Hi Kudpung. Thanks for your message the other day. I won't be allowing myself to get dragged into that debate any further than I already did. It won't end anytime soon, if at all, and it will probably do a lot of harm along the way. I saw the writing on the wall early on. And that is exactly why I took the stance that I did, which was consistent with my original stance anyway. That is, the only gold standard is the reference information, whether or not a template of any sort is used. And if a template is used in any fashion for any reason, it must serve our purposes, not the other way around. So once I saw the writing on the wall, I replaced the ((r)) template in articles where I'd originally placed them, alerted Maedin (about the identified technical difficulties, not the looming storm), and did what I could to help Chienlit regain some integrity as a good faith editor.
In other words, once I could see there was controversy, packaged along with several agendas (themselves primarily good faith, but confounding solution and fuelling debate nonetheless), my opinion was, and remains, that the best thing to do is replace the contentious template and side-step the cesspool. Let it play out as it will. Let others who wish to be vehicles for that debate, or even drivers of it, do so. That is their choice.
I see that the ((r) template has been proposed for deletion, and some (I guess automated mechanism) now leaves a message at every use of the ((r)) template. This interferes with the readability of the Malvern, Worcestershire, Malvern Water, and Barnards Green articles - especially the first two. The mere act of leaving the ((r)) templates in place is causing problems not originally forseen or intended. Never mind if the tactic of making articles using the ((r)) templates unreadable smacks of the sort of underhandedness one sees in vicious political campaigns. Some will spot that and complain. I say so what?
My advice regarding these articles is that we replace the ((r)) templates with <ref name=/> templates. This will bring back the readability of the articles, and avoid being caught up other people's campaigns. They aren't worth getting caught up in. It's not as if they save children's lives or anything really useful in life. I will assist replacing the templates if this if desired. I would estimate the overall time for the three articles at about an hours work. Regards Wotnow (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Wotnow. I didn't know there were any citation wars. Anything I know about citing references is what I have come across accidentally while navigating artound the Wikipedia for other stuff. To be quite truthful, I tend to regard all Wikipedia templates as a necessary evil, and clearly many of them are made for the sake of making templates (it's a bit like the craze, which has thankfully died down, of making Widgets when Mac OSX was first released), so I never really looked into what you and Gyro were doing because I trust your judgement as editors. What I have found is that using even a basic citation template cramps my style, takes longer to complete, and gives the result in date formats only understandable in the USA and not by the world at large, hence I prefer to write my ref strings in real time using the quick instert button for the <ref></ref> tags. I find that any other method, particularly any that put the ref information in another separate template in another ==References== section defeats two fundamental objectives:
The automatic generation of the numbered information in the {{reflist}}
The ability to copy and paste a chunk of text complete with its refs witout having to hunt for, and copy and paste the rest of the information that goes with them as well.
However, I do certainly agree that keeping the ref information out of the body text makes the page code far more readable for an editor, but on the other hand, we're writing for readers who may not know, and/or may not want to know, how php and html work and how web pages get put together for display in a browser. I am biased of course, because I write for content, whereas others have a genuine interest in the programming that puts it all together for us. I'm a bit like a design architect who leaves it up to the structural engineers to figure out how to build the thing! I suppose I ought to take a more active interest in this references saga and try to understand what it's all about, because one thing is sure: sooner or later, three or four Wikipedians will arrive at what they call a consensus and force the thirty or forty thousand others to follow their reasoning. --Kudpung (talk) 02:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Kudpung. Thanks for your reply. I wouldn't advocate taking an interest in the reference saga. I advocate avoiding being drawn into it, hence removal of the ((r)) template. That gets that bit out of the way. Then, as editors, it just comes down to the pros and cons of grouping the references together, or having them embedded in the article. That issue is separate to the ((r)) template issue, which is what the controversy is over.
You may recall my comments to Dana Boomer, (paragraph beginning "The creation of more problems...") where I say of templates that "There's no point trying to impose the ever-increasing use of templates on someone if they're using a method that is compatible with more recent developments - it may well be those people who are showing the greater sense!" So I readily see your point about templates, as does GyroMagician, which we both know from his comments. As a group of editors, we were, and will continue to be, interested only in generating good articles, with useful information, in the most efficient fashion for us as a group of editors. Templates can be useful, or a dangerous sidetrack. In my opinion, the ((r)) template didn't start out as a dangerous side-track, but it has become one. Hence I say let's be shot of it.
As for the then remaining question of list-defined references, I think your points are important, and they have been raised by other editors in these discussion forums which I've perused for learning purposes, but which I'm sure as hell going to avoid getting sucked into. In that regard, I think the best approach is to not implement it in any more Worcestershire articles unless there is a general consensus that there is a gain from its implementation. And that might only be partial implementation, as I did with the Shakespeare article, where I simply utilised it to get a handful of lengthy reference notes out of the article body, leaving everything else intact. As for the Malvern Water and Malvern articles, I would only suggest sitting on them as they are for a while, apart from getting rid of those contentious ((r)) templates. Let some time transpire to see how it fares OUTSIDE of those contentious debates, and removing the ((r)) templates allows you to step away from that, so you can make informed decisions over time without some artificial pressure arising from the use of a contentious ((r)) template. Regards Wotnow (talk) 05:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
(copypaste from the response on my talk page) Sorry, I'm kinda new with references. I've mostly done vandalism cleanup the past two years. I know Pitcock is notable, but unfortunately a lot of his sites are currently down due to a rouge employee at his company. It's difficult to find references to him 'cause, although he's done a lot of work that's notable, he himself is somewhat of an unsung hero. I'd appreciate some help getting some references. --Jacob Myers(Flame me!)04:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Don't worry about it, I think the consensus will be to keep Pitcock. Finding reliable, verifiable references can sometimes be hard but at the end of the day the Wiki rule verifiability not truth is applied. Which means that however notable something is and however deserving of a Wiki page, if it can't be proven, it can't be written. Combatting vandalism is a great mission - keep up the good work and take a break to brush up on WP:CITE. --Kudpung (talk) 04:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Hardwicke
HI -- I placed a reference on the Cedric Hardwicke page as you requested. Hope that helps! Randy 04:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rand503 (talk • contribs)
You are probably receiving this because you have significantly contributed to one of our pages. If you are not yet a participant in the Worcestershire project, now is the time to consider joining - it might help you get some assistance on a page you feel particularly attached to.
Here goes for the second irregular news bulletin...
First GA in 2010
We finally got over our euphoria over the Malvern, Worcestershire promotion to Good Article status. The GA sets a benchmark for the quality to be targeted for other articles in the project, and clearly demonstrated how important teamwork is.
Recently founded
A lot of work has already been done since the Worcs project was started, including the recent tagging of the talk pages of all the articles about people connected with Worcestershire, keeping spam and vandalism at bay, and welcoming new editors on their talk pages.
Experts needed!
The Worcestershire project mainly concerns settlements. It's generally agreed that the immediate priority now is to improve the articles that shiould be the flagships of the project, namely Worcester, and Worcestershire which are some of the articles in the worst state.
Meet up
Kudpung has booked his flight from Asia and will be back in Malvern from 1 April for a month, and looks forward to meeting up with as many Wikipedians as possible, especially those who work on the Worcs project.
NEWS
Two major debates are raging on the 'pedia and we have been cautiously taking part.
In for a shake up is an accumulation of nearly 50,000 totally unsourced articles that may end up on the cutting room floor after a period of grace. As a project, we can help by taking a look at those BLP in the county and doing what we can before the axe falls.
citations
A war almost broke out over citation formats, but a mature approach from Worcs project members prevented any physical injury. There, are only three basic rules for citations: 1. All articles must have them. 2. Consitency of format throughout an articles. 3. Changes to the format require a consensus. We are not obliged to use citation templates, and WP:LDR might not be such a good idea while chunks of text and/or their references are being copied and pasted around related articles in the county. In any case, let's always discuss what we have in mind HERE.
new project pages
The project main page has been pruned to be cleaner, and much of the support material has been transferred to dedicated pages. New usefull banners and templates have been created, and shortcuts to the new pages that also include a side bar navigator and a brand new easily edited To Do list.
new participant
After all the hints getting him to join, we now welcome User:wotnow !
sysop (admin)
Our only admin has resigned his tools. It would be great to have an active admin as a member of the project. If you think you would be able to cope with all the responsibility adminship involves, checkout WP:RfA and nominate yourself. Nobody needs to have a high edit count or to be an expert in all areas, but being active, having a reasonable overview of the workings of the Wikipedia, and a decent level of maturity, are expected minima. The process is not painless, and is worse than a British army promotion board! Alternatively you can always nominate another user.
Would you like to join the WP:WORCS?? Please enter yourself at WP:WORCS! - new editors are always welcome!
Happy Wikying, and thanks to everyone else who has contributed to our articles.
New project resources
Before making any major edits to articles or stubs, please be sure to read the new WP:WORCS/HowTo.
Urgent tasks are now listed at: WP:WORCS/ToDo. It should be referred to often, and will be your main stop for most maintenance tasks. We recommend keeping the page on your watchlist.
Most project pages now have brand new side bar for easy navigation. (Thanks, GyroMagician).
Priority Articles==
The top priority articles have been identified as probably being:
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, so we can concentrate our efforts on these first. Priorities are not set in stone and if you would like to discuss changes, please join in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Worcestershire.
Other priorities:
The recommended priority by kind is for creation/improvement of complete articles is:
Places in the county
Schools in the county (Particularly susceptible to vandalism - please keep them on your watch lists if possible).
Transport in the county
Notable buildings/objects/geo features/AONB/Heritage sites, etc. in the county
History in the county
Industry & Commerce in the county.
People in the county - NOTE: These all need the Worcs project banner adding to their talk pages, and assessing.
County related articles about things not actually in the county, and/or other related projects.
Monitor The watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Infoboxes Some of our articles need their infoboxes completing infobox.
References Please remember that the list of stubs needing expansion is always in need of attention. Please take a look and see if you can help. One small edit, such as adding a reference section and reference, to an article each session would make a big difference. If you are uploadiing an image, be sure it has a correct FUR, and that you have preferably already created a link on the page where you want it to be.
Moves, merges, and multiple edits Please be careful when performing articles moves and check if anyone seems to be in the middle of doing the same thing. If he; she, or they are, stop and have a chat about it. Otherwise you may be unintentionally duplicating or reverting each other's work. This is particularly important if an article is currently under a GA review. image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR.
Andy, the newsletter is made in the same way as all newsletters - it is in fact a tiny template and not a page at all. That's exactly the same as the link you requested, except you just click show and it goes to the template page where the newsletter is hosted. You are quite at liberty to delete the template from your page (after you have read the newsletter of course) - it's your talk page.--Kudpung (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Andy, do let us know at WT:WORCS if you no longer wish to receive updates regarding the Worcestershire project. If you membership status has changed, please edit your entry on the member list on WP:WORCS. Please address all comunications regarding the Worcs project to the Worcs project talk page as I try to keep this page here for personal messages (see talk page banner above). Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Andy, I don't own the project, i'm merely a slave to it. ALL communications regarding the project belong on the project talk page - see below.--Kudpung (talk) 05:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The military history wikiproject posts a link instead of a transcluded template (see here). I just want to check that you find that preferable to recieving the collapsed template, which would actually take up fewer characters and less actual space on your talk page? Nev1 (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Kudpung, and thanks for the latest edition of the newsletter. I think maybe some folks are less happy to receive it because it messes up the contents listing on talk pages (the invisible collapsed sections appear in the contents). Maybe it's better to follow MilHist, putting the newsletter on the WP:WORCS subpage and posting links to those that may be interested? (and yes, I will get back to tagging 'people in Worcs' soon!) GyroMagician (talk) 12:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
The irony is, that I never wanted to do a newsletter in the first place. It was a weak attempt in trying to enlist some more support for the project. Some of those who joined have not made another edit since they put their name down.I get the point about the headers messing up peoples' contents lists. Admittedly something I never thought about although I tested the newsletter on my own talk page first. The advantage is that it's a template this time, so one fix does all, and a large number of newsletters are sent out this way. I would like to point out once more however, for the benefit of anyone following this thread, that this kind of discussion would best take place on the project talk page at WT:WORCS, where other project members will (hopefully) follow it and take the initiative of producing the next newsletter.--Kudpung (talk) 05:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Articles related to architecture over the past two weeks are listed automatically by AlexNewArtBot.
This list was generated from these rules. Questions and feedback are always welcome! The search is being run daily with the most recent ~14 days of results. Note: Some articles may not be relevant to this project.
This template will be updated regularly. If you would rather not receive this bulletin, just delete it from your talk page.
Hello and welcome to the WikiProject Architecture - here's the bulletin - if you don't like it just delete it from your talk page, otherwise, it automatically updates. Please give me or one of the other project members a shout if you need any help. Kind regards Elekhh (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Victorian architecture
Hi. I did it anonymously because I've been having trouble with stalkers for a while now. The situation has calmed down now, but who knows? Anyway, glad you liked my contribution. How did you track me down? If you can, so can others (but I intend to have a wikiholiday for a while anyway).
Particularly if they are making what could be perceived as a slight, by making them without your signature, it looks as if you are making a drive by slight with the hope that they will be lost in the mass of posts on the page. I'll AGF, but without the sig, it looks more derogatory than it was probably intended.---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus!16:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Balloonman, Thanks for pointing something out, but I have no idea what you are talking about if you can't refer to something I have edited or contributed to. I assume, as your name rings a bell, that it is to do with the BLP issue;. I am a conscientious editor who always signs his edits and completes edit summaries. If I omitted to do so it was totally unintentional - I have absolutely nothing to hide and a clear conscience. A quick look at the page history will always reveal who posted - unless of course they are hiding behind an IP or a sock. I have no time to waste in contributing to a RfC if my comments are not to be taken seriously.--Kudpung (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
That's what I figured. It was on the BLP RFC... you made two comments, where you failed to sign your comments. As unsigned post, they LOOK worse than what I think you intended, which is why I mentioned it. I'm glad, however, to have you confirm that it was a mistake and not intentional.---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus!16:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Kudpung as the Wellingborough page gets nearer to a B rating im finding it increasingly hard to find references for the Notable Wellingburians section. Im also planning to change the section into a paragraph, but not until the refs are made to get it the rating. Could you help find any refs please, thanks.Likelife (talk) 16:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I have now copyedited the section, please see the page history and use the compare version feature to see what I have done because it will give you an idea how to compose prose better suited for the encyclopedia. Putting lists of people into prose is not easy and in my opinion is one of the silliest Wikipedia recommendations. If ever you want to go for GA, those people whose own Wiki pages are unsourced will have to be dropped, because their own pages will soon be deleted following a current drive to clean up all unsourced biographies. I have done one or two other edits including removing all the fine details about the council's future plans. This is really speculation on the future as far as an encyclopedia is concerned, and it can be looked up by any reader following the links provided.The references are now all displaying with a consistent format. Any future references should display the same way.--Kudpung (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Kudpung. I just fixed a link and added a few lines on todays Green light for 3,000 new homes as I think it is notable. The page is coming along nicely. Likelife (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm complaining about the reintroduction of the final rhotic r in the names of Worcertershire, Herefordshire, and Warwickshire. It's an edit revert war, perpetrated by an admin, among other reasons, which is why I don't think it's particularly cool.--Kudpung (talk) 17:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
He's complaining about me specifically, but also about the WP consensus on how to transcribe English pronunciations. My most charitable explanation is that he is so set on assuming bad faith on my part that he hasn't actually bothered to read anything that has challenged his initial assumptions, even by other editors. kwami (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've spent some time reading through all the discussions. My problem is that unlike you I am not technically knowledgeable enough in this area, so I can't easily tell if you have a case that merits action other than that which has already happened. Reading LFH's comments on his talk page in the discussion with you, I tend to think he has some good points. I can't see a lot of evidence for the edit revert war you mention above, although there has been some sparring. For what it's worth I totally agree with the quote you make on LFH's talk page about the "randomcracy" and the broken-ness of WP, but that tends to support the view I've formed that much of this is hobby-like, eg, the debating is like a hobby as are the "wars" and "winners and losers". Given how obviously non-functional WP is especially at the technical edges like this where you are an expert and see error, I kind of think "what's new" and "is it worth the bother"? WP is good but it clearly has severe limits which the public are increasingly aware of and discuss. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi WFCforLife, thanks for your response. I'm not actually complaining. I'm just wondering why football articles are, or appear to be exempt from WP:CITE, that's all, because {{noref}} and {{refimprove tags}} placed on football articles and/or BLPs of footballers get reverted. BTW: I see you have also been contributing to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. --Kudpung (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy reply. I think the two tags are different cases. Dealing specifically with {{BLP unreferenced}}, it can be replaced with {{BLPsources}} provided there is some sort of reliable source. If controversial information remains unsourced, that can be removed per BLP policy, and should not be restored without citation. {{BLPsources}} should only be removed once the sourcing is adequate, which usually means at least one source per paragraph, with specific claims cited inline where controversial or extraordinary. I invite you to continue this discussion at WT:FOOTY if you feel that there is a project-wide issue with our wikiproject's handling of BLPs, or consider talking to the individual editor if it largely seems to be one person. Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I perfectly understand the use of all the tags, but thanks anyway for confirming what I already know - it's comforting to know I am on the right track. As an active project member (and involuntary leader, sigh!), I am coming across a huge number of footy articles that are unsourced, too numerous now for me to even attempt to remember them and list them. The problem has escalated since I noticed that tags are being removed by anons, and without es. The extent of all this naturally lead me toassume that I was in the wrong, and that there may be a WP:CITE exemption of some kind for footy. I've taken your advice and will continue this discussion on the WP:FOOTY page as I see that several other members have reacted too.--Kudpung (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering if you wanted a break from your usual editing and would be interested in some translation from French? The Brontë article is at FA on the French wiki and the English article could do with bringing up to scratch with information from the French version. I tagged it for translation a while back but as yet not response from the translators. Keith D (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Keith, you're probably right about needing a break - I've just got myself ANI'd for trying to clean up the encyclopedia! I'll take a look, but if it's a major work, I'll have to spread it over several days.--Kudpung (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I've just spent over an hour just looking at both article and their talk pages. The FR article is huge - almost the scope of a doctoral thesis! There are suggestions on its talk page to split lots of bits off into individual articles. Fortunately the Fr are far more disciplined in their discussions and by pure coincidence (I didn't know this) my son-in-law is an admin on its FA committee. The Fr article is really so large it could be a stand-alone WP project in its own right. I would have to spend a lot of time analysing the FR article to first establish what bits should be translated and how they could be embedded into the Engl article. It represents about 80 A4 pages if it were printed out. It's doable, but it's going to be a monster task. It would take up all my Wiki time fo 4 - 6 weeks and isolate me completely from my micromanagement of WP:WORCS and other projects. I suggest that we should have a dedicated task force for it. I know that your interest stems from your involvement with WP:YORKS; possibly such a task force could comprise members from both Yorks and WP:WPBIO. Have you any suggestions how to go about this?--Kudpung (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look, on the face of it it looks like it is a non-starter. At the moment the WP:YORKS project members seem to have gone into hibernation and very few are active. I cannot see much effort from them, the WP:BIO project seem to be tied up with the BLP problems at the moment, so I cannot see any effort from that quarter. Keith D (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm a 99.9% native French speaker so I can translate as fast as I can type. What I will do is to have occasional stabs at it and store what I do on my dedicated user space HERE where anyone else can hack it about and use it.--Kudpung (talk) 02:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Keith. I taught in a French university for 12 years, and I'm use to their attention to detail and even redundancy and duplication. While this is a lesson that could be learned by many of us English Wikil editors, the more I work through this (I just started the translation without spending four hours reading through everything first) the more I realise how complex and complete the French article is. In spite of the very large sections on each member of the family, they even have their own even larger main articles.I do need some help to avoid unnecessary duplication, seeing as how the bronte sisters all ahve their own pages on the Eng Wiki too. However, I'm going to continue plodding through the Bronte family article, but there is probably going to be a lot more discussion on this before we are finished. Could you suggest a more apt place for this discussion than on our talk pages? The talk page at Bronte is already a bit crowded, and if it were somehow more centralised, we may get support for more involvement.--Kudpung (talk) 04:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The material will probably be useful for building up each of the articles on the members of the family, it would make a good featured topic at some point in the future but there is a long way to go before that. If you do not think the article talk page is the place for discussion then you could use the WP:YORKS talk page but it may get lost there among other topics. Cannot think of any other place unless you have a dedicated sub-page of the Bronte talk page just for this purpose with a link to it from the main talk page. Keith D (talk) 11:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for that. You have elegantly elaborated that which I was, by frustration, unable to say. Here's hoping (hope over expectation) that some sense comes out of this. Cheers Fortnum (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
It's nice that you use numbers to list off your points, as it makes it clear to you what I'm responding to and clear to me what you're responding to, but because you didn't continue the numbering in your subsequent post, I feel like some of my points weren't, and won't be, addressed. This sort of thing undercuts in-depth and progressive conversation. Part of the difficulty seems to be that you're attempting to respond to multiple editors, at least one of whom you feel is acting improperly.
Do you think you could, in my talk page, respond to the points that I've brought up in this reply to your post? This will just be for an exchange between you and me so that neither of us is overwhelmed and we can make sure none of our important points are missed or ignored. — Ƶ§œš¹[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]08:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
aeusoes, I appreciate you efforts and sincerity to discuss this IPA issue in a calmer environment, but the truth of the matter, as I have explained before, is that in my work on this encyclopedia I never wanted to cover the things I do at work - that's why, apart from helping out with some general maintenance work, I write about wine, settlements in the UK and Europe, and micromanage the WP:WORCS. It was through my work on the English county articles that it was discovered from my user page that I am a linguist and I was drawn into the IPA saga by other geography editors who couldn't understand why their articles were being attacked by the IPAists. They obviously had enough basic understanding of the IPA, however, to raise their initial questions, which clearly demonstrated to me that something needed looking into. I'm afraid I was rather turned off by the incivility that I met, and the protectionism of a few authors who were building a virtual stone wall around their Wiki world of IPA. If the welcome had been warmer, and more willingness to address the issues had been shown rather than just answer our questions with new, unrelated ones, and then accusing us of not answering them, perhaps I would have been more inclined to continue on this theme. The discussion got totally off track, and petered out. I think the issues are still very far from resolved, and if any one declares the discussion prematurely closed, it will only flare up again when the next bunch of county projects realise what is happening to their place names. I think I'll go now and open a bottle of Châteauneuf-du-Pape.--Kudpung (talk) 12:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
thank you
thanks for the information on writing for Wikipedia, specifically in the Herefordshire entry.
Naivety made me jump in and copy the form of other pages - Herefordshire, economy and its link to Bulmers with its commercial website links, plus all the tourism material under such pages as Tourism in Britain.
I'll follow Wikipedia guidelines in further entries and edits.
Thanks again, Robert DewarRobert Dewar (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Kudpung. 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.
Hi there. I replied to a discussion you started on my talk page. As per recommendations on my talk page, I posted the reply on my talk page, which can be seen here: User talk:Tghe-retford#Unsourced UK radio articles. --tgheretford (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
