Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dorset/Archive 1

Archive 1

Welcome to the project

Welcome to WikiProject Dorset everyone. After a lot of internal debating on my behalf, I decided to pick up the courage and go about creating a project devoted to increasing coverage of Dorset on Wikipedia. It seems that through the efforts of several members (some of which are participants in this project), we already have a good base of GA and FA articles to get started with.

If someone knows how to create or where to find a bot that could tag Dorset category articles, then please do so; as pointed out by BarretBonden, manually tagging each and every article could be laborious. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 14:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Well done for setting it up. I won't formally join as I have enough to do with the neighbouring Wikipedia:WikiProject Somerset - but I have tagged a few article relating to things which cross the borders. You can put in a project tagging request at Wikipedia:Bot requests but you need to make sure your category structure is exactly right otherwise you will not tag relevant articles & wrongly tag those which do not fall within the Dorset project. If I can help with other set up things let me know.— Rod ^talk 17:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Rod, I will almost definitely take up your offer! I'll look into the Bot requesting. It's a shame you can't join, but I realise your prior commitments (darn Somerset..!). MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Can only echo the above - well done on getting this started - will help out if I can. I've tinkered with Dorchester in the past and had a big hand in Flag of Dorset. White43 (talk) 13:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Glad to have you onboard White, appreciate the help. Dorchester is my biggest concern at the moment, so aid in getting it up to a GA would be much appreciated. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Priorities, or collaboration of the week/month?

I know some other projects and wikis have collaborations of the week in order to boost some articles. While it's a nice idea I'm wondering whether anyone but myself would be bothered to tap in weekly and make some edits count. Should we stick with priorities, adopt weekly.. or consider monthly? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot  (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:05, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Local chapter for the Wikimedia Foundation

We are Wikimedia UK - the group of local Wikimedians helping the Foundation to create "a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge". Love Wikipedia? Based in the UK? Can you support us in projects such as generating free-content photographs, freeing up archive material and media relations? Or are there other projects you'd like us to help with? if so, please click here to Join up, Donate and Get Involved

AndrewRT(Talk) 21:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:WPDorset

There's something wrong with the template the project uses to tag its article on the talk page. At the moment, the image next to the portal is a red link. Nev1 (talk) 01:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting us to this Nev. It seems that the previous image has been deleted from the Commons. I'm currently trying to resolve the issue with the user who deleted this and to see whether we can create an alternative or restore the original. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 10:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems to have been fixed, thanks for sorting it. Nev1 (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to have been fixed for me, and I must admit I haven't really sorted much out at the moment. I'm preoccupied with exams, and it seems that the Dorset coat of arms has become embroiled in an argument over copyright images from vector-images.com. I hope to sort this out in the next few weeks. Sorry for the inconvenience everyone, I wasn't expecting this. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This image is the one used in the project banners and seems to be working for me (it might be worth purging your cache to see if it works). If you post a link to the discussion on commons I'll take a look. I know a few editors who are knowledgable in this kind of area so I might be able to ask them for help if the issue's unresolved. Nev1 (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think MasterOfHisOwnDomain is referring to this image [1] (if I remember correctly it was the Dorset County coat of arms) which was deleted per this discussion over at the Commons. BarretBonden (talk) 21:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the deleted image from Template:WPDorset. It probably looks better to have just the standard portal image for now rather than the red link. BarretBonden (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That was indeed the image I was referring to (I myself haven't experienced problems with the Flag of Dorset). Thanks for deleting the image from the template, that should keep the wolf from the door for the immediate future, until I or someone else manages to restore the image. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Maiden Castle, Dorset

Hi folks, I just thought you'd like to know that I've nominated Maiden Castle over at WP:GAN. A fresh pair of eyes to look at my prose and see if it's too technical or if there are any unanswered questions/glaring omissions would be gratefully appreciated. Hopefully, this can be WP:Dorset's next GA! Nev1 (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. Great work so far, the article looks in good shape for a GA. Personally, I'd be more than happy to take an in-depth look at the article in the next couple of days and leave some feedback for you. As you say, looking forward to this becoming WP:Dorset's next GA (and the first new addition since the project was started)! MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The article is now a GA, although there's a little polishing to do to the article. I like the article so there's an outside chance I may take it to FAC, although not in the near future. Nev1 (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Crikey. I thought the process would take a lot longer to be quite honest. Sorry I didn't get a chance to have a thorough look through before GA was passed (not that it seemed you needed my help!). I hope I can find a bit of time (doing exams at the moment) in the next couple of days to help out in polishing it. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It can be a bit hit and miss sometimes with how long you have to wait, but I think it helped that the article was in a queue without a big backlog. There's no rush, exams come first! (Bad news, I know). You might be interested in knowing that it featured on the Did You Know? section of the main page and got over 10,000 views! Such a high number surprised me as it didn't have a picture to go with it, but it seemed to catch the imagination of a few people. Nev1 (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Targets

Does this project have any specific aims? The goal on the project page is "to improve existing articles", which is pretty nebulous and doesn't have an end point. That is of course the ultimate aim of every project, but it might be better to identify other targets which can be achieved in the short term. Running a race is a lot easier when you can see the finish line (or at least knkow it exists!) Nev1 (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether you are posting having seen these priorities or whether they count as specific aims. Now that I have finished exams I will add to and keep updated this WikiProject a lot more. Also, could I add achieving FA for Maiden Castle as a goal? I don't know whether you're planning to add more work to it in the short term and would therefore be willing to have this goal. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 10:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Woops, I hadn't noticed those aims! I should be able to help with Corfe Castle (the actual castle). After Maiden Castle was so successful at DYK I've decided to take it to FAC sooner rather than later and have started editing it again so I'd be happy for it to be added as a goal. Nev1 (talk) 11:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(Update) I've got round to nominating Maiden Castle for FAC much sooner than I'd anticipated as I found a second wind. Nev1 (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Watchlist

Hi everybody, I thought project members might be interested in this link. It's the project's new watchlist which I've created. Hopefully, it should help us stay on top of vandalism and track new users who might be interested in joining the project. Apropos nothing, Maiden Castle, Dorset, has been promoted to FA; it won't show in the article stats until the bot has run giving the article its bronze star. Nev1 (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for setting that up, and congratulations on achieving FA status with Maiden Castle. Barret (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Maiden Castle, Dorset (one last time!)

Hi everyone, Maiden Castle is Today's Featured Article so it's probably going to get vandalised a few times today. Any help reverting vandalism and keeping the article in good shape would be very much appreciated. Also, we can expect that articles linked in the article(such as Dorset and Dorchester will get more traffic than usual and may be vandalised, although peripheral articles are usually safe.) Cheers, Nev1 (talk) 00:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Dorset

Hi everyone, I thought I'd raise a couple of issues about the above article here. It was made a Featured Article way back in 2005. Back then, the FA criteria weren't so stringent on referencing, which is the biggest issue with the article. It currently has 22 inline references, which for an article about something as large as a county just isn't enough. It's on a list of FAs promoted before the second half of 2006 that may need attention. Currently, the article is one of 27 flagged as not having been reviewed. If it were to undergo a Featured Article review today, it would not retain its FA status. It's likely that someone will nominate it at some point, but I'm hoping that by raising the issue here the project can begin the long process of improving it. It's not an easy task, but WP:UKGEO or other projects such as WP:GM, WP:LON, and WP:YORKS may be able to give advice on how to proceed. Closer to home than any of those is WP:SOMERSET which has successfully brought the article on Somerset up to FA status. Nev1 (talk) 21:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nev, I wasn't aware this was the case. I'll get some word around and see whether we can't organise a possy (possi?) to help improve Dorset! Hoping (but not expecting of course) you can help as well. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course, I'll do what I can to help out. Nev1 (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nev, appreciated as ever. I've put together a little notice to gather those under the category Wikipedians in Dorset, and those listed under this WP. I'll post it shortly. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've managed to get hold of a fairly decent history book for Dorset, I should be able to add some references for the History section, I've added one so far. Jamie S (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh that's great. I might be able to get a couple of books on Dorset's history as well, after my results day has been and gone. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Any thoughts on the idea of using Google Maps as a reference for Dorset having no motorway? I can't think of anything wrong with it, but does anyone have other ideas? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 08:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The notice: please edit or include at/by: Wikipedia:WikiProject Dorset/Notice. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we should keep the discussion here

So please raise any issues with Dorset beyond this point. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Physical geography

I think this section needs to be divided, particularly to a section on climate and coastline. Any thoughts? On the issue of climate, what source should we use for a climate graph? The closest location covered by the Met Office Averages seems to be Yeovilton. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 13:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured article review of Dorset

I have nominated Dorset for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. kind regards Tom B (talk) 21:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Dorset articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Dorset articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiConference UK 2011 16 April 2011: Watershed Bristol

If you missed the Wikibanner, full details of the above at {http://wikiconferenceuk2011.eventbrite.com/} Jezhotwells (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hundreds

Should articles on hundreds be titled Foo (hundred) or Hundred of Foo? Input and comments please at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography#Hundreds. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Article alerts

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dorset/Article alerts has been created; generating Article alerts for this WikiProject. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Assessment log: bot malfunction?

The bot which is supposed to update the project's assessment log seems to have stopped working, as nothing has been updated since 5th December (previously it was updating every 3 or 4 days). Does anyone know what the problem might be, or how to fix it? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The bot is now working normally; it was only a temporary glitch. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Project article assessments

An editor recently added the Project's banner to the article From Time to Time (film), which has a mildly tangential relationship to the county (it was filmed at Athelhampton), and made me wonder if there are defined criteria for deciding whether or not an article should be taken under the Project's wing? I wasn't necessarily thinking specifically about this article, it's rather that I can see that it's theoretically possible for a lot of articles with only minimal connection to the county, to have the Project's banner attached simply by virtue of 'Dorset' being mentioned somewhere within them. Is there any kind of policy on this? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Good question. I don't think there are any criteria. 'From Time to Time' seems a bit tenuous but I am often wondering whether articles such as Thomas Masterman Hardy, Henry Digby, Charles Bullen shouldn't be tagged (I notice Bullen has been claimed by Somerset). Perhaps the project should come up with some guidelines?--Ykraps (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Some criteria for inclusion that I have thought of (this is not exhaustive) -

• Articles concerning geographical subjects that are wholly within the county's boundary (e.g. Dorset Downs, Sandford Orcas)
• Articles concerning geographical subjects that are partly within the county's boundary and that are closely or inherently associated with the county (e.g. Jurassic Coast)
• Articles concerning geographical subjects that are partly within the county's boundary and are of particular interest to the county (e.g. Hampshire Basin)
• Biographical articles concerning subjects that are fundamentally associated with the county (i.e. more closely associated with Dorset than with anywhere else) (e.g. William Barnes, Bastard brothers)
• Articles concerning historical subjects that are fundamentally associated with the county (e.g. Tolpuddle Martyrs)
• Articles concerning historical subjects that are of particular interest to the county (e.g. Bloody Assizes)
• Articles concerning cultural subjects that are fundamentally associated with the county (e.g. The Mayor of Casterbridge)
• Articles concerning cultural subjects that are of particular interest to the county (e.g. West Country dialects)
• Articles concerning sport-related subjects that are located within the county (e.g. Bournemouth F. C. )
• Articles concerning transport-related subjects that are located within the county (e.g. Chetnole railway station)
• Articles concerning transport-related subjects that are partially located within the county and that are of significance to the county (e.g. A35 road)

Strangely, this list seems simultaneously too general and too specific, though I currently cannot think of a better way of defining criteria; any views? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I know what you mean. When you start using it to determine whether an article qualifies or not, it doesn’t seem prescriptive enough. I think we need to include and define notability and importance. For example: even if only a tiny proportion of the Jurassic coast was within the county, it would still be included because it is so important whereas a minor road, a majority of which runs through the county, may not qualify. Another thing to consider is that the county boundaries have changed so should a historical event that occurred in Bournemouth prior to 1974 be excluded? Is someone who was born in the county but left soon after, of greater interest than someone who spent most of their lifetime there? The more I think about it, the more questions I have. I’ll have a good think about it when I have a bit more time but we could well end up judging each article separately and arguing amongst ourselves whether it warrants inclusion.--Ykraps (talk) 11:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I've had a re-think on this issue, and propose that a better way of assessing the suitability of an article for coming under the Project's wing is not to ask "Is this article of significance/importance to Dorset?", but rather to turn it around and ask "Is Dorset of significance/importance to this article?" I've tried applying it to a few situations, and so far it seems to work quite well. Articles about places and geographical topics within the county obviously qualify - which is surely right. For biographical articles, the proposed criterion would include T. F. Powys, who spent much of his life in Dorset, but would exclude T. E. Lawrence, whose connection to Dorset was only a small part of his life (and if you read the T. E. Lawrence article, with all its detail about archaeology, the armed forces, literature and the Middle East, it does indeed seem strange to add the 'WikiProject Dorset' banner to the talk page). However Clouds Hill, where T. E. Lawrence lived for a short while, would qualify for inclusion. For cultural/artistic articles, again the question seems to work quite well. For example a film or book for which the setting of Dorset is significant (such as Moonfleet, The French Lieutenant's Woman, or any of Hardy's works) obviously qualifies, whereas a film which is filmed on location in Dorset but for which the setting of the story is some other place (or just somewhere generic), then that wouldn't qualify. Can anyone think of situations where the criterion doesn't really work? I suggest that whatever is decided, it would be good to have at least some kind of guideline written on the Project page, so that it can be referred to in any matters of dispute. As if to add weight to that argument, I note that the same editor who added From Time to Time (film) to the Project's lists, has just - in good faith - added Harry Redknapp, which seems wrong to me. Any thoughts? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

howdy y'all,
I'm a n00b who's up for collaborating with some wiser heads on any articles what be needing improvement. I've added some bits and bobs to Boscombe and nice quote about Bournemouth in the culture section. I especially want to drastically improve the Hengistbury Head article which I've made a small start on.
Peace! Hillbillyholiday81 (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hills of Dorset

Having just joined the project team, I have created a list of hills of Dorset with numerous references to relevant sources. That said, further improvements are most welcome, especially brief remarks about any notable features of a hill e.g. whether it is the site of a Roman fort, etc. Cheers. --Bermicourt (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bermicourt, I like your article, thanks for taking the time to create it. I have a couple of suggestions; perhaps it would be good to have a brief description of the classes of hills, as part of an introduction/lead. Why, for example, are many of the hills over 150m not classed as marilyns? What is a HuMP, and why the unusual use of capitals, is this an acronym? Regards--Ykraps (talk) 01:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ykraps, that's a useful steer. I can expand on that. --Bermicourt (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I must have had an error or something when I went to say this earlier (about a week ago!), but that is some great work you've done. WP:FL isn't my domain, but I would say that with some expansion of the rationale/lead it could be taken there soon. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 11:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

South Dorset Downs

Originally the Purbeck Hills article was actually, confusingly, about both the Purbeck Hills and South Dorset Downs. Now that all mention of the South Dorset Downs has been removed, should the latter become a new article in its own right? Currently South Dorset Downs still points to Purbeck Hills, which makes no sense. I am happy to create a stub. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Redirecting to Dorset Downs would be a sensible interim measure, in my view. The South Dorset Downs are a bit tricky to deal with in my experience, as they geographically merge with the northern downs in the west and the Purbecks in the east, and are formed in part from the same chalk deposits, yet their geological formation is also different - quite a bit of the southern downs are limestone, not chalk. Perhaps enquire at the Geology WikiProject talk page, and see what people there say. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 01:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, makes sense, done that. My understanding is that the South Dorset Downs lie south of the River Frome, running from west of Lulworth Cove westwards to the area of Eggardon Hill where they meet the Dorset Downs (sometimes distinguished by being called the North Dorset Downs) sweeping west and south from Shillingstone Hill. However, we'd need to understand what authoritative sources say before putting a start article together. This recent source shows the South Dorset Downs on a map, but the scale is a bit small. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

New articles

I've just added a couple of new Dorset, geography-related, articles: Dorset Heaths and Weymouth Lowlands, based on information from Natural England. They are only stubs at this stage, so feel free to develop them further. Not sure how to weave a mention of them into the Geography of Dorset article... --Bermicourt (talk) 09:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The Geography of Dorset article should have a section about "Land use and habitats", and the heaths could be mentioned under that (together with the arable land, chalk grasslands, chalk streams, ancient woodland etc.) When I was first creating the Geography article I sketched out a broader scope (see my sandbox), but never got around to making it all a reality. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Geotagged Map

Does anyone believe something like the WP Greater Manchester geotagged articles map would be a useful/interesting thing to do for Dorset? I actually think it could serve a somewhat useful purpose in demonstrating which areas are (under)represented and being a motivating tool to get more articles to these stages so that the map disappears under a sea of GA/FA icons! MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 11:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's a great idea but I wouldn't have a clue as to how to create a Dorset version.--Ykraps (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Had a go myself, think it's turned out alright actually. Please let me know what you think. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 10:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It could do with a few more stars on it! :) --Ykraps (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

As a bit of a map fiend, I'm all for plotting things out like this - thanks for taking the time to do it. A couple of questions/points:

1) Why does the Poole good article have a larger symbol than the other good articles?

2) I wonder if it would be preferable if the symbol for the Dorset featured article was placed off the map (or rather, on the map, but not over the county); in its current position it tends to give the impression that somewhere in the vicinity of Melcombe Bingham has featured article status.

3) A similar approach to point 2 could be taken with the South West Coast Path article.

4) Would it be feasible to add articles which are B or C class? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Poole has a larger symbol because it is of "High" importance; all the rest are of "Mid" importance. I put Dorset in the geographic centre of the county, not sure where else it could really go and make sense. South West Coast Path article is where it finishes in Dorset. I suppose it would be feasible to add B or C class, but I think we would need a clear reason to add them; why do you think they should be included? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

With regards to the Dorset FA symbol, I would consider putting it to one side e.g. over Lyme Bay, and seeing how that looks (just for a try). My 'clear reason' for adding B and C class articles is just that I like having information presented on a map hahaha! PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I can try that. I'm a bit hesitant about the B and C because I fear we'd start drowning in symbols. There are 63 B and C-class articles already, and probably many more that haven't been assessed but which reach that status. And as the project progresses there will be many, many more! I fear that you'll in a way have less information on the map because it will be so hard to distinguish. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really pushing to have B and C articles depicted - I understand the map might get a bit crowded (at that scale anyway); it's just the map is a bit empty at the moment. A side issue related to all this (particularly to articles which aren't GA or FA) is how up-to-date the Project's article assessments are - many months ago I assessed quite a lot (several hundred), though there are still many that haven't yet been assessed, plus of course if articles are improved, their quality rating should change to reflect that, but often it doesn't, so the ratings become inaccurate. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi PCW. If you think that is something that needs doing, why don't you add it to the to do list on the project page? There will need to be a mechanism for keeping track of which articles have been re-assessed. Perhaps on a sub-page? Best regards--Ykraps (talk) 06:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Weymouth College (public school)

I think that the grade II listed building http://list.english-heritage.org.uk/resultsingle.aspx?uid=1272147 described as Weymouth Technical College is probably the building of the former public school, but can't find any evidence. Someone with local sources might be able to expand the article on the school, and sling in a redirect from the tech (which presumably evolved into the present-day FE college of Weymouth College). PamD 11:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

And, is the building now demolished, or used by the college, or turned into flats? Any local sources? PamD 13:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Pam. It sounds to me like the Weymouth technical college I attended back in the 1980s. It stood between Dorchester Road and Newstead Road. I say 'stood' because I've just been on Google Earth and can't find any sign of it. The site appears now to be housing so I would say it has probably been demolished, yes. I don't have any sources for this though. Sorry--Ykraps (talk) 07:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Please help get Dorset ready for the start of the Wiki Loves Monuments competition on 1st September

This September the UK is taking part for the first time in the international photography competition Wiki Loves Monuments. Participants will be invited to submit pictures of listed buildings of significant importance (grades I or grade II*), as recorded by English Heritage. The main external website for competitors can be found here, and you can leave a message there if you have queries about competing. Do please join in, and let people in your local area know of this excellent way in which both existing and new Wiki users can help improve the encyclopaedia by contributing photographs of local listed structures. What about organizing a local Wikimeet to attract new people?

In preparation for the start of the competition on 1st September there is still quite a lot of work to do, and we would like to ask for the help of members of this wikiproject. Your local and expert knowledge will be invaluable in ensuring that the lists of eligible buildings are up to date and correctly formatted. If you look at Listed buildings in the United Kingdom you will see how many structures are included. If you then follow the link to Listed buildings in England, you can get to the detailed lists for your area. Alternatively have a look at the WLM planning table. Can you help to ensure that the lists for your area are up to date and well presented?

Some of the lists have been semi-automatically generated from data provided by English Heritage. These use pre formatted templates (eg EH header) which will make it much easier for competition participants to upload their photographs to Commons as an automated process. Please don't change the template structure, as we need to ensure that the templates are properly compatible with the WLM standards that are in use worldwide. The format will allow a bot automatically to collect the information and to put it into the international Monuments Database.

The data still needs the attention of local editors:

• The "title" may need wikilinking to a suitable article name (whether we currently have that article or not). If there are several buildings in one street all of the wikilinks point at an article about the street; however each entry has a separate line in the list.
• The "location" column looks and sorts better if just the parish or town is included (& wikilinked).
• The "date completed" column sometimes has eg "C19" for 19th century, and "C1850" for c. 1850 when the date is uncertain - these need to be corrected manually.
• The "grid ref & lat & long" (which is occasionally missing) may be given to 8 characters — only 6 (grid ref) or 5 (lat & long) are really needed.
• Clicking on the "list entry number" should take you to the data sheet for that entry on the English Heritage database which can be checked if needed for details.
• The image column should have a picture added if we already have a suitable image on Commons. (N.B. if you are going to be taking photos yourself for inclusion in the competition don't upload them until September)
• References may be added according to normal WP practice.

For further information, please see Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in the United Kingdom.

If you have any queries, please post them not below but on the Organizers' help page on Commons.

Anything you can do to help improve these lists will be much appreciated. The final deadline for cleaning up is 31st August.

--MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Abbotsbury POTD

A panoramic image of Abbotsbury is due to be pic of the day on September 29th, so if folks feel like helping to improve the article a bit, now's a good time. I think there's a lot more that could be said about the village. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll try and contribute bits here and there over the next few weeks. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 12:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Are we semi-active?

Is the semi-active tag on this project accurate? My sense is that activity on Dorset articles has picked up to the point where it is an active project again. --Bermicourt (talk) 14:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. How is 'semi-active' defined anyway? It's possible that individual editors can be actively editing Dorset articles whilst this project remains relatively quiet, but I think the project page sees more interaction than a couple of years ago - at least that's my impression. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Well that's a good point. I would take the broader view that if Dorset articles are being actively added and edited, then the "project" is active. What may be needed is just to make new active editors aware of the project itself and invite their participation in the forum and any specific ongoing aims. I've added quite a few articles this year and consider that I'm contributing to the project, even if my participation on these actual project pages is relatively low. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Although there are a number of project members working individually on Dorset articles, there doesn't appear to be the same level of collaboration as with other projects, and the lack of interaction here perhaps reflects this. This is not a criticism by the way, merely an observation as to why we may be perceived as semi-active. However, if we are working towards a common goal, i.e. the improvement of Dorset related material, then I guess we can call ourselves an active project.--Ykraps (talk) 07:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Photography at the Tank Museum

Dear Wiki Project Dorset. Wikimedia UK has been given some complementary off peak tickets by the Tank Museum so that our photographers can improve our coverage of their tanks and other vehicles. Interested photographers can apply for a ticket by emailing me with their snail mail address. Regards Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to say that I have a season ticket from last year, and will probably visit the museum sometime this year before it runs out. Is there a list somewhere of what needs photographing? Or any further information? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, there is a wishlist being compiled here apart from one where the image is a heavily zoomed very blurry one I'm not sure that any of the other suggestions are definitely on display at that museum - or any other in some cases. Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Would it be more profitable to contact editors who have produced Featured Pictures and who have photographed other places in the area? I say this only because the article already has a respectable number of images, so presumably the museum is looking for better quality? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It isn't so much the museum that is looking for these but us and of course the Milhist project. Though of course as they are openly licensed the museum will be able to use them. My first approach was an email to those of the UK participants in last years Wiki Loves Monuments who had opted in to that, but I still have 8 tickets. It seemed sensible to offer them here as well as on the UK mailing list and the UK wiki. It is partly a quality issue, but there are several Wikipedia articles which don't curretly have an image but could be illustrated with a photo of one of their exhibits, and at least one image currently in use is a heavily zoomed snippet from a larger picture. Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

"Dorset Down"

FYI, the usage of "Dorset Down" is up for discussion, see Talk:Asturian Mountain -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 06:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Archive?

Have you considered archiving the older discussions? (say older than 2010?) /Archive 1 can host old discussions that no longer garner traffic. This talk page is rather long at the moment. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 06:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The West Country Challenge

We're planning on running Wikipedia:WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge in the summer. It is based on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales/Awaken the Dragon model, a very successful contest/editathon which saw the improvement and creation of over 1000 articles and 65 Good and Featrued articles. If you'd like to replicate this success for your county, please sign up at the contest page in the participants section. It is intended for both people who might compete in it and for those just interested in independently contributing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The West Country Challenge

Would you like to win up to £250 in Amazon vouchers for participating in The West Country Challenge?

The The West Country Challenge will take place from 8 to 28 August 2016. The idea ito create and improve articles about Bristol, Somerset, Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, Dorset, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire.

The format will be based on Wales's successful Awaken the Dragon which saw over 1000 article improvements and creations and 65 GAs/FAs. As with the Dragon contest, the focus is more on improving core articles and breathing new life into those older stale articles and stubs which might otherwise not get edited in years. All contributions, including new articles, are welcome though.

Work on any of the items at:

• Core articles
• Missing article hotlist
• Missing photograph hotlist

or other articles relating to the area.

There will be sub contests focusing on particular areas:

• Bristol (Day 1-3)
• Cornwall and Scilly (Day 4-6)
• Devon (Day 7-9)
• Dorset (Day 10-12)
• Gloucestershire (Day 13-15)
• Somerset (Day 16-18)
• Wiltshire (Day 19-21)

To sign up or get more information visit the contest pages at Wikipedia:WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge.— Rod ^talk 15:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

River Stour (Dorset)

Hello all. I have added citations, headed sections and done some tidying to River Stour. Can someone review for upgrade from stub-class? I am in the process of adding more, though I cannot say when that will be and I am also creating a routemap too. I will make it auto-collapse so that it does not affect the look of the article though. Regards and thanks. The joy of all things (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

A route map would be great, as the current map only shows the location of the mouth. Would the route map replace that map? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

No; a routemap would look like this one I did for the River Lea. Click on the show function to expand. The joy of all things (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Upper River Lea/Lee
Source Houghton Brook  A6  Tunnel under  A6  &  A5228  Wardown Park Lake Stream either side of  A6  Midland Main Line under Luton under Luton  A505   A1081  Luton Hoo Park Lake Midland Main Line Hyde Mill  B652  road Batford Springs Nature Reserve  B651  road  B653  road The Broadwater Lemsford Springs  B197  road  A1(M)  Stanborough Park boating lake  A6129  Stanborough Lake boating lake East Coast Main Line  A1000  Mill Green  A414  Essendon Brook  B1455  road Bayford Brook River Mimram Hertford Loop Line  A414   B158  road Hertford Castle Weir Hertford Town Mill Bridge Lee Navigation

Merge proposal

It has been proposed that the articles Dorset dialect and Glossary of Dorset dialect words be merged. Please join the discussion at Talk:Dorset dialect. Thanks--Ykraps (talk) 09:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Village Pump proposal to delete all Portals

Editors at this project might be interested in the discussion concerning the proposed deletion of all Portals across Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Ending_the_system_of_portals. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Dorset

Portal:Dorset has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Dorset. Certes (talk) 11:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Featured Article Review for Weymouth, Dorset

I have nominated Weymouth, Dorset for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Isle of Portland

User:Buidhe has nominated Isle of Portland for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Brownsea Island Scout camp Featured article review

I have nominated Brownsea Island Scout camp for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for South West Coast Path

South West Coast Path has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)