User talk:Trappedinburnley/Archives/2018

NOMIS2011

Thank you for the message about the template. I was investigating a reference to Melton when I noticed the web citation without a link. I then found the nomis site that had the statistic used. I do not plan on editing articles were I could use the template. I naturally check references since so many are dead and others often do not have the information cited.

A critique: 1. Personally, I do not like citations where the author is not a person, I know it is acceptable. 2. Wouldn't "Office for National Statistics" be a more appropriate author? "UK Census 2011" should be part of the title. 3. I do not know the report was published in 2011. 4. Shouldn't University of Durham be mentioned? possibly using "via=". These are all comments for your consideration. I appreciate the attempt to use templates for simplification and consistency.

P.S. I reside in the U.S. and am tired of being logged out in a middle of an edit.User-duck (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@User-duck: Thanks for the feedback, you raise some interesting points. This template is based on others and we had to balance the need to clearly identify the source of the data, produce a succinct cite, and make various features function within the available expertise. As my talk page is a very quiet corner of Wikipedia, the best place to raise these questions is the talk page of the template. Regarding "tired of being logged out in a middle of an edit", try a different browser perhaps? TiB chat 13:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I came across this on an article on my watchlist, I like it a lot and have put it to use on a couple of articles. Thank you. J3Mrs (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @J3Mrs:, rolling the template out is proving to be quite an arduous task and has distracted me a little from that Hapton Valley article I promised. We do have one issue you might be able to help with? This template inherited a minor issue with {{sfn}} cites from {{NHLE}} that we copied from. It sees "UK Census" and the ID as two authors. However I've not found an article that {{sfn}} cites are required with census data. I know you like a quality article, I don't suppose you are aware of any?TiB chat 18:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I am the last person who would be able to help with that. What I like is that it is easy for me to use. I've no doubt the colliery article will be started eventually, I 'll start looking when I'm feeling better. J3Mrs (talk) 09:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Collieries

@J3Mrs: sorry to hear that you've been feeling unwell, I had that Australian Flu over Christmas and I've only recently got back to feeling normal! I haven't forgotten about the article. I have already expanded the Hapton article, and have been working on a Hameldon Hill article when I've had time. Yesterday I thought why not start another project? So I now have the beginings of a Hapton Valley article also. I think I've found a decent crop of sources but I would be grateful if you could get involved. I'm currently trying to make sense of the geology and I expect you already could write more about the accident? There may even be enough for a Burnley Coalfield article if you would prefer that?TiB chat 19:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I've not been well for a couple of weeks and am not improving much. I think I could start a brief overview of the coalfield. Don't expect much, I'm not up to concentrating. I usually work offline since after some idiot caused a great nuisance when I used to work in my sandbox. J3Mrs (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Made a couple of starts but Burnley isn't well-represented in my books. It won't be anytime soon but I might be able to visit the mining museum library at some point to see what they have. I seem to remember there wasn't so much about Lancashire as there was about Yorkshire. J3Mrs (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Great (and speedy) work thus far! My article is slowly coming along and I hope to move it to the article space this weekend. With Burnley Coalfield, Bank Hall and Hapton Valley we've gone from virtually zero coverage on coal mining in the Burnley area to a decent insight and great basis for future expansion. I'm going to try to hunt down some old images that would be suitable for these articles. I almost bumped into Jack Nadin at the library last year, maybe I'll try to track him down. All the best.TiB chat 10:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I still can't think straight but odd things like coordinates pop into my head. Images would be great. Need to link the pits into the Burnley article too. I will expand the collieries list in the coalfield article as some won't have enough info for stand alone articles. It's quite amazing how most evidence of mining has completely disappeared in such a short time so it's important that there is a record. J3Mrs (talk) 09:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry you're still not 100%, you are giving me flash-backs to my January. I went for a wander in the vicinity of Hapton Valley yesterday although I didn't get close enough to see much in the way of remains, I did get a few nice photos of mine-water (I presume) pollution at the start of Green Brook, Lancashire. Regarding the article, are you aware of a source that would explain what a stable and a waste pack are in this context? I have a sense from the explosion report, but it isn't clear.TiB chat 12:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

From here the first is a new one to me but the second is familiar. Does this make sense?

• Stable, an area forming a buttock cut in advance at each end of a longwall face to allow certain types of conveyor mounted cutting machines to enter prior to commencing their next run.
• Pack, a form of permanent roof support in mines consisting of mine debris surrounded by vertical dry stone walls completed tightly to the roof. Often packs are built in continuous strips, a system which is called "strip packing”. The packs are usually 3 to 6 yards wide and extend from the face props back into the waste. They are often spaced 5 to 15 yards apart along the face. The rocks of the roof between the packs and behind the temporary supports are allowed to collapse. J3Mrs (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I didn't use it as a source because it seems a little self-published, but it is a very useful site to better understand the terminology. I think I got to a pretty happy place with the Hapton Valley article and I've released it into the wild. I would be grateful if you could cast your more experienced eye over it. Cheers TiB chat 19:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I like it. I've copyedited it but please change anything and everything you don't agree with. You do like to use with instead of and so they've all gone along with the howevers. I'll continue with the coalfield but we have a busy Bank Holiday ahead. J3Mrs (talk) 08:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 May newsletter

The second round of the 2018 WikiCup has now finished. Most contestants who advanced to the next round scored upwards of 100 points, but two with just 10 points managed to scrape through into round 3. Our top scorers in the last round were:

• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with three featured articles
• Iazyges, with nine good articles and lots of bonus points
• Yashthepunisher, a first time contestant, with two featured lists
• SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with seventeen good topic articles
• Usernameunique, a first time contestant, with fourteen DYKs
• Muboshgu, a seasoned competitor, with three ITNs and
• Courcelles, another first time contestant, with twenty-seven GARs

So far contestants have achieved twelve featured articles between them and a splendid 124 good articles. Commendably, 326 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2018 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met; most of the GARs are fine, but a few have been a bit skimpy.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Arron Banks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thornbury (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 July newsletter

The third round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• Courcelles, a first time contestant, with 1756 points, a tally built largely on 27 GAs related to the Olympics
• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three GAs on natural history and astronomy topics
• SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with a variety of submissions related to transport in the state of Washington

Contestants managed 7 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 120 good articles, 1 good topic, 124 DYK entries, 15 ITN entries, and 132 good article reviews. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 458 GA reviews, in comparison to 244 good articles submitted for review and promoted. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process; several submissions, particularly in abstruse or technical areas, have needed additional work to make them completely verifiable.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk), Vanamonde (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jim Mellon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Labour (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 September newsletter

The fourth round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The eight users who made it to the final round had to score a minimum of 422 points to qualify, with the top score in the round being 4869 points. The leaders in round 4 were:

• Courcelles scored a magnificent 4869 points, with 92 good articles on Olympics-related themes. Courcelles' bonus points alone exceeded the total score of any of the other contestants!
• Kees08 was second with 1155 points, including a high-scoring featured article for Neil Armstrong, two good topics and some Olympics-related good articles.
• Cas Liber, with 1066 points, was in third place this round, with two featured articles and a good article, all on natural history topics.
• Other contestants who qualified for the final round were Nova Crystallis, Iazyges, SounderBruce, Kosack and Ceranthor.

During round four, 6 featured articles and 164 good articles were promoted by WikiCup contestants, 13 articles were included in good topics and 143 good article reviews were performed. There were also 10 "in the news" contributions on the main page and 53 "did you knows". Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best editor win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 November newsletter

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is Courcelles (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 147 GAs, 111 GARs, 9 DYKs, 4 FLs and 1 ITN. Our finalists were as follows:

1. Courcelles (submissions)
2. Kosack (submissions)
3. Kees08 (submissions)
4. SounderBruce (submissions)
5. Cas Liber (submissions)
6. Nova Crystallis (submissions)
7. Iazyges (submissions)
8. Ceranthor (submissions)

All those who reached the final win awards, and awards will also be going to the following participants:

• Cas Liber (submissions) wins the FA prize, for three featured articles in round 2.
• Courcelles (submissions) wins the GA prize, for 92 good articles in round 3.
• Kosack (submissions) wins the FL prize, for five featured lists overall.
• Cartoon network freak (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 30 articles in good topics overall.
• Usernameunique (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 24 did you know articles in round 3.
• Zanhe (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 17 in the news articles overall.
• Aoba47 (submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 43 good article reviews in round 1.

Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2019 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email) and Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email).

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Trappedinburnley. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)