User talk:Starbois/2010

Autoreviewer

Hi, after seeing one of your articles at newpage patrol, I was surprised to see that an editor who has contributed quite so many articles as you over such a long period hadn't already been approved as an wp:Autoreviewer. So I've taken the liberty of rectifying that. Ϣere SpielChequers 11:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cumbrian settlements

Thanks for all the new articles on Cumbrian settlements. Where there are two places with similar or identical names then you can use the templates {{distinguish}} or {{distinguish2}} to place a hatnote at the start of the article rather than bury the message in the middle of the article. You might like to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria which as the name suggests specialises in promoting the two counties. NtheP (talk) 08:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rivers

Please note that the UK convention on rivers is to use comma disambiguation not brackets, please do not change the existing templates that go directly to articles to go via unnecessary redirects. Keith D (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy note

You are receiving this note because you participated in this TFD. Some of these have been re-nominated here, where you may wish to comment. Thanks, –xeno^talk 14:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your controversial The Left banke page move

Hi Starbois! I see that you have recently moved The Left Banke to Left Banke, citing the fact that WP doesn't generally put leading articles in titles, unless the article specifically forms part of a proper name. While this is true, in the case of The Left Banke, I would contend that the word "The" does indeed form part of the proper name in exactly the same way as it does in The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Turtles, The Velvet Underground or The Byrds, to list just a few examples. As per the "Names (definite article)" section of WP:MUSTARD - "An authoritative source will determine whether the word "the" is part of a band's name." Since the Allmusic website, the band's own singles and albums (see here), and the majority of the inline citations used in the article itself specify that they are called The Left Banke, I believe that this move was both unnecessary and erroneous.

In addition, The Left Banke is a trademarked name and as such the word "The" should be capitalized at all times as per WP:MOSTM. However, regardless of all this and whether you agree or not, I feel that moving this article was extremely controversial, and as such should've been subject to a discussion on the article's talk page or even at WP:RM prior to the move taking place. This type of establishing of consensus is recommended at WP:MOVE for moves that may be controversial. Therefore, I would ask you to please undo this move as soon as possible and revert the article back to The Left Banke. Then please feel free to open a discussion on the article’s talk page and hopefully we can get a few other editor's opinions on the merits of a potential page move. Many thanks. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I don't grock how removing a leading article from a name can be that controversial. It is only an article name. And redirects are in place to make sure both names work. As far as I was (and am) concerned, this was a minor housekeeping/tidying up change of a glitch I discovered whilst editing the Left Bank (disambiguation) page.

My decision that this was a reasonable change was based on:

The linked page at [1] has a section title "Left Banke references found on the WWW:", not "The Left Banke references found on the WWW:"
The linked page at [2] starts "Though originally helmed by onetime Left Banke mastermind Michael Brown, Stories ironically ...". No "The" there.
The linked page at [3] contains the sentence "Due to the nature of their music (which often employed session musicians), the Left Banke's sound was difficult to reproduce on the road, ...". The fact that their 'the' is in lower case suggests the author here thinks that it is not part of the band name.
roundly a third of the WP references to the article are to Left Banke not The Left Banke despite the fact that the latter was (until my change) the actual title. Given that most competant editors check any doubtful links and ensure they don't link via redirects, that suggests that lots of contributors don't agree with you.

So I stand by my change, and I shall not be reverting it. Your call on what to do next should probably take its cue from WP:BB. If you do revert my change, I doubt I will ever notice unless you choose to tell me. -- Starbois (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Starbois! Thank you for your reply. I take your point that there's controversial and then there's controversial - this is hardly likely to destroy Wikipedia as we know it! :-D However, I do still believe that the "The" is a part of the band's name. To counter your three given examples...

In the first example, the band are named as The Left Banke all over that site, even on that very page you've linked to they are called "The Left Banke" more often than not - in fact, the website itself is called The Left Banke Fan Page. It's also worth noting that this is a fan page and therefore probably shouldn't be used as an "authoritative source", to quote WP:MUSTARD.

In the Second example, the lack of "The" is just a grammatical necessity caused by the structure of that particular sentence. Dropping the word "The" isn't grammatically incorrect and is certainly possible but that doesn't mean that "The" isn't part of the band name. For example, you could substitute Left Banke for "Rolling Stones" or "Velvet Underground" or "Byrds" in that sentence and it would still work grammatically. This in no way means that the word "The" isn't a part of those band's names, just as it doesn't for The Left Banke either. It's just a peculiarity of that particular sentence.

Your third example just demonstrates Allmusic's in-house style when it comes to band names beginning with "The". Simply put, on the Allmusic site, all mid-sentence usage of a band name beginning with "The" requires the leading article to not be capitalized. This is just the Allmusic in-house style, as can be seen on the website's articles on The Beatles or The Byrds for instance. However, the fact that the word "the" is used in the band name in every occurrence - even the page heading is The Left Banke - supports my assertion that the word "The" is a part of the band's name. Allmusic can definitely be considered an "authoritative source" on this, as can the band's own album and single artwork (linked to above), which also uniformly names them as The Left Banke.

As for what to do about this, I feel that the case for reverting the page move is pretty strong and I take your point about being bold but I don't want to tread on your toes or seem too overbearing about this. I want to be transparent, so I will tell you up front that I am planning to revert your page move. However, I will delay for a while until you've had a chance to respond to this message, if you choose to do so. I will, with your permission, also copy this discussion to the article’s talk page for future reference.

By the way, I like your use of the word "grock"...I'm assuming you're a fan of Stranger in a Strange Land?. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do go ahead and revert my change. And copy this to the talk page. As you probably worked out from my previous reply, this isn't an issue I feel strongly about. :-)

As far as Stranger in a Strange Land is concerned, I certainly own a copy that I have read several times. I like it; not sure I'd go so far as to call myself a fan. I certainly wasn't consciously quoting from it, but who knows why I chose to use that word. -- Starbois (talk) 10:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Starbois! Just to let you know, I have moved the article back to The Left Banke and transcluded parts of our discussion to the article's talk page, along with an appeal for other Wikipedia editors to come forward and discuss the matter. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 11:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Balloon loop

Re this edit... balloon loops on tram systems were indeed common, but the majority of UK trams, whether of the traditional variety or the modern (Manchester/Sheffield/Croydon/etc.) type, are double ended/double sided; indeed I don't know of any system that used single-ended/single-sided electric trams (horse trams are a different matter though). Do you have examples of single-ended/single-sided trams? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied at Talk:Balloon loop#Balloon loops and single ended trams. -- Starbois (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dunbar lifeboat station

I think "Dunbar Lifeboat Station" is a proper noun. If so, the old title (with each word's initial letter capitalized) was correct. Please revert your rename. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply on my talk page. I agree that, in this context at least, consistency is a good thing. I'd also like article naming to be consistently correct, which I think means that "Lifeboat Station" is capitalized whenever it is part of a proper name. I'm not sure (yet) whether I care strongly enough about this to start a public discussion. I'll think about this some more. Best regards,--Stepheng3 (talk) 16:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weston-super-Mare lifeboat station

Thanks for starting Weston-super-Mare lifeboat station. Have you thought about nominating it at Template talk:Did you know?— Rod ^talk 21:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Southend Pier

Hello Star,

As you probably see, I did a bit of gnoming at Southend Pier to change the section titles. The anchors are ugly, aren't they? I think they should go outside the title, so that they do not appear in the auto-generated edit summary. However, sometimes they do not then work properly as anchors if they are misplaced. Various MOS things conflict about placement there, but it is rather ugly to havce them inside the title.

The only reason they are there at all is if an incoming link is to that section. For that reason I didn't link the lifeboat station, since it was only recently added and so I guessed would have no incoming links. WP:Linking#Link specificity has some guidelines about this, but other parts of MOS are in conflict.

You probably know wheter incoming wikilinks go to sections better than I do; as for external links, (Google etc linking to that section) it is a tough call. Probably I would lose the anchors myself. Si Trew (talk) 00:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Reading86

I moved User:Reading86 to User talk:Reading86. That is correct, no? Savh (talk) 11:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Lainson

Hi; thanks for starting and continuing to work on this. I shall be expanding it further over the weekend in respect of his Brighton buildings. I also intend to write a couple of articles for specific buildings themselves. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem: Reading Town Hall

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Reading Town Hall, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.readingmuseum.org.uk/collections/album/pdfs/townhall-36.pdf, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Reading Town Hall and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Reading Town Hall, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Reading Town Hall with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Reading Town Hall. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Reading Town Hall saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While not a direct copy, I'm afraid that I feel this article follows too closely on its source. Please see the talk page for more information, including a few examples of close paraphrasing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded under Talk:Reading Town Hall#Close paraphrasing. -- Starbois (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Thomas Lainson

On 20 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Lainson, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dab usage

I see you have moved Abbey Gateway, Chester to Abbey Gateway (Chester) saying this is the "correct dab usage for a building". Can you direct me to the guidance on this; I cannot find it. If it is the case, there are 100s if not 1000s of buildings, including churches, that will have to be moved (and is it worth it?). Cheers.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at WP:NCDAB.

Point 1 suggests that if there is a more complete name in general usage, that should be used. In this case that could be Chester Abbey Gateway, and I did consider that but wasn't sure it was a term in general usage.

Point 2 then says that a disambiguating word or phrase can be added in parentheses. This is the general disambiguation form for WP, and is acceptable everywhere. It is therefore the one I used.

Point 3 can be ignored in this context, I think.

Point 4 says that for place names, and then only if the disambiguating term is a higher-level administrative division, then the comma based disambiguation is allowed. To be honest, this is ambiguous and there has been some discussion about exactly what it means, but I read 'place name' and especially the 'higher-level administrative division' as meaning the disambiguated article has to be about a place in the sense of a settlement with some sort of administrative autonomy. To put some context on why this format is here at all, it was put in to accommodate the US real-world tradition of disambiguating city names in the 'city-name, state-name' or 'city-name, state-digraph' styles. For example 'Atlanta, Georgia' or even 'New York, NY'.

I hope that helps. -- Starbois (talk) 14:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked at Category:Buildings and structures in Chester and was surprised how many articles there are comma-dabbed, although there are also a couple of bracked-dabbed articles. If you feel there is a local tendancy toward comma-dabbing, then I will not stand in your way in reverting my move. -- Starbois (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation and the subsequent message. The situation is, as you say, ambiguous (I'm not sure if it is a UK/USA thing). WP:NCDAB does not advise specifically for buildings; Point 2 refers to subjects for which I quite agree parentheses are appropriate. IMO buildings fall nearer places than the subjects in these examples. I have had a look at a few USA churches; some use commas, some use parentheses, confirming the ambiguity. Almost all the UK articles on buildings use commas. Maybe the best outcome of this discussion would be for the initial editor's usage to be accepted, unless the title is out of context with its peers nearby.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I've made it so. -- Starbois (talk) 18:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]