Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Waterways/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Pennine Waterways Links

Over the past few days Pennine has added a number of external links to Pennine Waterways. Each link is to a relevant page within the Pennine Waterways site.

Geni has reverted all these edits, asserting that the addition of these links constitutes Link Spamming.

It is my view that;

• the Pennine Waterways site (as I'm sure many project members will already know) is a pretty definitive and comprehensive work about the canals of northern England, and other general waterways topics.
• the site is much more comprehensive than the coverage of these waterways here.
• the external links enhance the content of the Wikipedia articles by providing a link to a more detailed article on the canals in question.
• the number of links added to a single site could potentially be misinterpreted as link spamming.
• it would have been better if Pennine had discussed adding the links here to avoid any misunderstanding.
• it would have been better if Geni had voiced his concerns here about a far from clear cut case of link spamming, rather than simply reverting all the edits.

I have discussed this with Geni, but he/she remains unconvinced that the links are anything but spam.

I don't want this to end up as an edit war, so I'd like to seek views from other project members as to whether adding a number of relevant links to Pennine Waterways constitutes link spamming. I'm satisfied that the links were added by Pennine in a genuine effort to improve the content of the pages, rather than any effort at self promotion (the site needs no promotion), but am happy to accept the consensus here, and hope that Geni will as well.

Mayalld 20:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Support re-instatement: I followed some of the deleted links and found them completely worthwhile. They contain images which will never be transferred here, because of copyright, and if for no other reason than this I support their reinstatement. --Old Moonraker 20:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Support re-instatement: I have found the pennine waterways site to be a genuinely useful resource, and one worth linking to (I myself have entered links to its pages, from Manchester and Salford Junction canal for example). I support the reinstatement of the links. --VinceBowdren 22:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Support re-instatement: I agree with VinceBowdren , having looked at the Manchester & Salford Junction canal (the Pennines were down) I fully agree. OK there is a bookshop linke and a link to Sub-Brit, but the mass of pictures totally outweighs anything else that may be there.Pyrotec 08:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Support re-instatement: I was suspicious of these links when they appeared. Adding external links to ten or so different pages in the same editing session is liable to arouse suspicion, and is usually indicative of a spammer at work. But then I discovered they were each deep-linked to separate pages on topics relevant to the page in question. They meet the criteria for External Links and should be re-instated.

Incidentally, Geni also removed all of the External Links from Lock (water transport), this afternoon, regardless of their relevance and without providing an adequate reason. This action is, to my mind, verging on vandalism.

Comment I have realised that Geni's argument is completely spurious. By his argument we should remove all references to Images of England, the English Heritage website providing details of listed buildings, since each of these points to a different page on the same website...

EdJogg 22:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Support re-instatement: The Pennine waterways site is a superb resource. The links being discussed aren't spam - spam is useless annoying irrelevant directed advertising. These links are not. They provide valuable information, and should be re-inserted. Parrot of Doom 21:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Linkspam is unsolicted links. It is fairly clear the links were added to promote a website so pretty clear they were spam. If they were to be added by someone with a different objective they would not be spam.Geni 22:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Clear to you, but not so clear to others. In any case, we seem to have a way forward. As I do edit, improve, and add content regularly, I can add these links with impunity. It's a nonsense of the highest order, but given that you seem to have taken a rather odd position that following a process is far more important than getting quality encyclopedic content, it will probably end up as easier all round to jump through your hoops Mayalld 15:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I would certainly add the links back in, but, as I said below, they would be even better if they were tied in with specific facts in the articles where appropriate and used as refs. That id another way in which this argument can be resolved in a way which will almost certainly guarantee it won't be raised again by anyone.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the edit to Lock (water transport) was far more than just removing an alledged spammed link, and I'm minded to revert that edit immediately Mayalld 09:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

None of the links talked about locks in general. That being the case any worthwhile links should have been on the articles about the locks the links were talking about.Geni 14:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The links are spam. Therefor they should be removed. Feel free to consult the experts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam.Geni 14:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I already consulted the guidelines at Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided and Wikipedia:Spam#External_link_spamming and the links do not count as spam as far as I can tell. Possibly (particularly if User:Pennine has an association with the site) his/her actions may count as "Links mainly intended to promote a website". But that is a matter of the editor's motivation for adding the links; as pointed out, other editors have added links to the same website in exactly the same way so a blanket removal is unwarranted. --VinceBowdren 14:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Not in exactly the same way. The user has done nothing apart from add those links. Users who come along and do nothing other than add links to a single site are spammers.Geni 17:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

So, you are seriously suggesting that had somebody who had also added content added these links, then they would have been appropriate? That is, and must be a nonsense! Mayalld 18:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I would generaly conclude that they are not a spammer.Geni 20:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This is what I find ludicrous. Surely, the objective is to create the best possible article on each given subject (modulo any copyright issues), as such content is either good, useful content, or it is not. Naturally, the editing practices of users will be a useful tool to provide hints as to whether it is likely that spamming is going on, but that is all that it provides; A hint that we should examine these edits more closely that we examine others. The final test must be (whether the user adds other content or not) Does this edit add to the article, or does it simply promote an external site. We would do far better encouraging Pennine to move on from link adding to editing content than we will ever do by reverting the limited but useful additions that he does at present, and slapping him on the wrist.Mayalld 18:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Tell me if you get anywhere with that. If you don't want to be snowed under with linkspam more than we already are then then we have to make sure that linkspaming does not work in any way shape or form. Compramise is not an option because the spammers wont.Geni 20:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The consensus so far seems to be that the link additions were not spam. However, not that many people have commented. Unless anybody thinks it inappropriate, I intend to leave messages on the talk pages of all members of the project inviting their comments.Mayalld 18:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that nobody other than you seems to think that it is spam.Mayalld 06:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Do we know for sure that he/she is the owner of the website in question? It seems to me that there are two issues, the intent to spam, and the relevance and usefulness of the information. The manner in which the links have been added does seem to point to a possible intent to spam, but the information is nevertheless useful. Maybe the best solution would be to leave things as they are for now and let other editors add links to this site, if they feel they are the most comprehensive reference on a subject. Here is what Wikkipedia [[1]] says "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it."Derek Andrews 15:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Support re-instatement on a page by page basis I think we should treat each link in the way Pennine should have done it in the first place, by mentioning it on the relevant talk pages, discussing it and decide whether to add it. Derek Andrews 10:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Support re-instatement but not as mere external links: (Not sure where to put this, so at the end seems less contraversial) I would think the website contains much useful information. In which case, although the links could be reinstated as mere External Links, I think something better can be done: reinstate them but as full-blown references (in between <ref>...</ref> tags, which would surely be a much more effective way of using the website's pages and would also enhance the article much more. Such an action is suggested in WP:EL as well.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That is a good point. I'm quite happy to review what will work as references. However, I do know that some of the links (particularly the virtual tour wouldn't work as references, but fall under Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayalld (talk • contribs) 06:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes. You are quite right: there may well be some of the ELs that cannot easily be converted into full-blown references. In which case, as you imply, these must each be considered in terms of the declared appropriate reasons why ELs might be considered appropriate. This entire approach also means that one must consider each EL on a case-by-case basis, which is the point that Derek Andrews made a little above.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I added a link to the Pennine site to the River Don Navigation because it seemed to provide a comprehensive and reasonably systematic photographic record of the navigation as it now is. I would therefore support reinstatement. Bob1960evens 21:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps equally importantly, I have added a welcome template to Pennine's user talk page - it seems that somewhere along the line, the principle of assuming good faith may have got squeezed here. Whereas it is quite often the case that an editor who edits only to adds links is spamming, it doesn't necessarily have to be the case, and if the links are useful, and could equally (as some have) been added by others, then they should perhaps be allowed to stay. Regards, Lynbarn 21:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if Pennine could be persuaded to make some of his/her photographs available to WP where articles are lacking? It would certainly show good faith.Derek Andrews 10:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Since pennine isn't responding to our concerns here, would it be appropriate to send a message via the websites contact form? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derek Andrews (talk • contribs) 10:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I came to this project mostly via the Cheshire project, and (except in the most extreme cases of spamming and nonsense) my approach to External Links has mostly been to view them as suggestions put in by people for additional facts or verification of claims in the body of the article for which, up to that point, no citations exist, and which, for whatever reasons, they are unable to complete themselves. So, I have tended to interpret an External Link as if the editor who added it was saying something like "I think this EL might be a useful source of info. Could someone look at it, and see what use it has in providing backup or verification for claims or facts given in the main text. If the EL can be thus used, convert it into a full-blown reference, and move the EL into the reference section accordingly." Approaching the added ELs in this frame of mind helps assume good faith, and, more importantly, aids and improves the article in removing unverified information. I've found it a very useful way to proceed, and think it can be applied in the case being discussed now, for reasons I've already mentioned.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Pennine is an infrequent editor, so probably hasn't seen any of this discussion yet! I can, however, get in touch with him, to discuss whether we could use his images. Mayalld 07:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC).

Support re-instatement on a case by case basis There is a lot of good stuff on the Penine site, but the blanket addition by a single user probably does verge close to link spam, but equally the blanket removal is not a good idea. As with all things wiki, I'd suggest weighing the link for each article, or as susggested above use as inline cites/references, on a case by case basis. Catwhoorg 11:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

Assessment has now been set up with cats created on Unassessed-FA quality and no-top importance. The assessment page is at its basics. Creation of some of the other cats may be needed in future. Please improve the template as well. Simply south 23:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Importance Rating

Well, we've managed to get all the articles rated for quality, which is no mean feat, but we still need to rate about 100 fro importance, then we can really see where we need to concentrate effort.

In rating for importance, I've tended to use the following as starting points;

High	Articles about canals that are heavily used parts of the network (T+M/SU/GU), major structures (Anderton/Standedge) or about people/organisations who are very significant (Brindley/Telford/IWA/BW)
Mid	Articles about all other navigable canals, and about disused canals that might see restoration within 10 years, most other tunnels and aqueducts, particularly noteworthy locks (Richmond lock for example), reservoirs that are of some particular note (Rudyard because it was once mooted that navigation would be routed that way), people and organisations that are of more than just very local significance (FM&C, Outram, NABO)
Low	Everything else, particularly most reservoirs, derelict canals that will still be derelict in 10 years. Short navigable but disconnected canals, people or organisations of minor significance, most articles about individual locks.

Anything that is a bit set apart from others in the class might get upped a level (High→Top, Mid→High, Low→Mid)

Mayalld 07:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Candidates

A couple of existing GA articles have been flagged, but given that we've started on the assessment process, we should probably start taking some B-class articles forward to GA review. Mayalld 06:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Given that this old version of the Montgomery Canal was rated B class, I'd like to see how the current version fares. Hmallett 10:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

For content, it fares superbly, but we need to inline reference it to get a GA on it. Mayalld 07:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Overlaps

I've noticed that for some canals (particularly the Ellesmere Canal, Llangollen Canal and Montgomery Canal) there is some information that is replicated across the articles, and in a couple of cases contradicts each other. Given that these 3 canals are actually two canals that merged (Ellesmere and Montgomery) and are referred to as two canals (Llangollen and Montgomery, except the 'new' Montgomery isn't the same as the 'old' Montgomery), what would be the best method of ensuring consistency and avoiding unneccesary duplication? Hmallett 15:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

First priority should be to correctly fix the inconsistencies. Most importantly I think it is essential to make clear at all times whether we are talking about a length of waterway, or the company that owns it. For example, Llangollen Canal says and later was part of the Shropshire Union Canal which should probably be either and later was owned by the Shropshire Union Canal Co or and later was a branch of the Shropshire Union Canal. Similarly in Montgomery Canal In 1847 the Eastern Branch joined the Shropshire Union network, should be something like was sold to. A little more precision would go a long way to improving the articles.

I am sure the railway folks encounter the same problems, and I wonder how they resolve it? Some maps for these waterways would go a long way to making the articles more understandable. Derek Andrews 01:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added maps to the Montgomery Canal article. There's scope for improvement (partially due to an incomplete legend), but it should serve as a basis for improvement. If the Montgomery ones are good enough, I'll do a map for the Llangollen Canal too. Hmallett 15:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Lock, tunnel names, etc

You may have noticed some edits by SomeHuman (talk · contribs) overnight. He has been systematically changing the capitalisation used for the names of locks, boat lifts, and goodness-knows-what-else because it is 'inappropriate'. For example, "Bath Deep Lock" is now referred to as "Bath deep lock". Some of these changes have left redlinks in their wake, implying that existing articles are missing.

He has made several hundred edits, particularly affecting the locks on the K&A, and I have left a message on his talk page asking him what his reasoning is.

Could someone assure me that this is common English usage, even if only in the UK? I'm sure that I have visited Salisbury Cathedral not Salisbury cathedral (which is a redirect to the former, by the way). Surely there is a difference between (the) Tower Bridge and (a) "Tower bridge" (whatever that might be!). Am I going mad, or what?

EdJogg 09:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly how I would do it. See also Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Capital_letters. It doesn't really cover this case, and might be worth asking on the Talk page. I did a Google on "aldermaston lock" and "ladywood lock', and ignoring photo sharing sites and blogs (they are often inconsistent within the same article) the concensus seems to be for Lock. Derek Andrews 10:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal‎ edits before I read this discussion. Numerous page moves have been done as well, which I baulked at reverting. I was going to post a similar message to EdJogg's here, but would have also added a note that I think such radical and extensive changes should really have been discussed first: probably best on here. My reasoning for reverting the changes is similar to the ones given here. Probably to sort it all out, some bot can be used to revert the page moves if that is agreed is the best way forward?  DDStretch  (talk) 10:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

My original query to user:SomeHuman, and his response, are copied below, as it makes more sense to continue the discussion here...

Capitalisation of waterway features
Hi. Can you please point me to the WP:MOS page that says all individual bridges, tunnels, locks, etc must be described in lower case? As far as I am concerned, Basingstoke Canal and Foxton Locks are proper nouns and should be capitalised as such. It is correct to talk about "the locks at Foxton", and "the canal in Basingstoke", but using mixed capitalisation is misleading: Foxton locks suggests a type of lock known as 'Foxton'. You could not correctly say a Bath deep lock, unless there was more than one of them: one would write 'the Bath Deep Lock. There is only one "Bath Deep Lock" so "Bath deep lock" is not an appropriate nomenclature, however Bath chair and Bath bun describe generic items and should not be capitalised.

Could you please double-check your reference for this format and apply the necessary corrections? Thank you.
EdJogg 09:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Whether to capitalize designations for locks or bridges, is a rather difficult topic. On this Wikipedia I had found, for instance Rothensee boat lift, Strépy-Thieu boat lift and numerous other article titles for unique waterway constructions. It is then not logical to use the term 'lock' as a proper name by capitalizing it. Neither Wikipedia:Manual of Style nor Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) handles the specific topic of such engineering works. It is however clear that these are not institutions (e.g. "Harvard University", "New York-Presbyterian Hospital") or addresses with officially assigned names (like "Elm Street"). In many cases, the location of a such construction may have lend its name to a placename. If one describes the small village that may have grown around, say, the lock at the (assumedly much wider area of) Foxton, then the place would be named Foxton Lock. If one only describes the lock as a construction, with the year it was built, its length, mentioning the next downstream and upstream locks, one describes the Foxton lock, like one might describe the Elm Street sewer or the Leicester Square central lamp post. Similar to the latter example, in a number of cases there are several locks in one municipality and one refers to it as the place's 'top lock', 'bottom lock', 'lower lock', 'deep lock' etc. Such descriptive naming has in many cases become a coined term and as by then it had often become the name of the place, it will often be capitalized; but it is still not more correct to describe the lock itself as Foxton Lock any more than to describe the sewer in Elm Street as Elm Street Sewer. None of the article titles in which I replaced capitals with lower case characters described the location as a place name but only described the actual locks, immobile objects that take room at a place. Notice that in similar occasions of usage, waterways are always capitalized, as these are the aquatic equivalents of e.g. Elm Street, Compton Crescent, etc. In fact, I'm not quite sure what to think about harbours as these have much in common with both waterways and locks, though in practice one usually refers to the commercial/industrial place with a specific local harbour authority that makes the harbour an institution, either way capitalized.
You may notice that 'Manual of Style (capital letters)' mentions British writers and editors to be more inclined to capitalize (in general) than Americans, and advizes to rather follow this while using either style for other cultures. It would however not have been a nice sight to see only British boat lifts appear with "Boat Lift" capitalized in an article such as List of boat lifts, and boat lifts are rather more unique than locks. One of the aforementioned WP style guide pages links for cases of doubt to the Chicago Manual of Style FAQ, which does not handle the 'locks' problem either. Closest appeared to be [2] of which I'm following the consistency advice of the bottom line.
One of your samples would thus have to be "the Bath deep lock", in which the definite article makes clear that it does not designate a particular type of design and that there will only be one lock near Bath that may be referred to as the deep lock. If there would happen to be a specific type of construction at that site, and one would already refer to the type by the original construction as a coined term, one would have "a Bath deep lock" in another location and would refer to the lock at that location, say in Greater Whatplace, as "the Greater Whatplace lock" and when intending to mention also its design type as "the Bath deep lock at Greater Whatplace" or "the Greater Whatplace lock of the Bath deep lock type". Fortunately, such designations are rare, I did not encounter one in the many articles on locks. Kind Regards. — SomeHuman 15 Sep2007 12:17 (UTC)

Thoughts? EdJogg 14:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The example of "Elm Street sewer" is misleading, as the exact parallel would be to rename it "Elm street sewer", rather than actually concede the point by continuing to capitalise "Street". Arguing that "Street" is something intrinsic to the name is actually begging the question, and immediately concedes the point in favour of capitalisation, given the advice of WP:ENGVAR. The same issue occurs with his misleading case of "Leicester Square central lamp post" which would have been more in keeping with his views to have changed it to "Leicester square central lamp post", except that this would have also made clear the error of over-generalising in the way he is doing. I don't see how the point he says follows logically in his second sentence does follow, let alone logically, though I note both places he uses as examples are not in the UK. I happen to know that in the case of Foxton Locks, the example he then goes on to use, the local term for it does capitalise "Locks". Presumably, on the German wikipedia, the German habit of capitalising all nouns would not be overridden in such a way. Given the nature of his reasoning, his reasoning also smacks of a novel synthesis of various aspects and characteristics of the lock structures and the surrounding areas in order to determine a correct naming form, which I'm not sure is a good idea on here. But may be all this can be made much more simple by just appealing to WP:ENGVAR and continue to capitalise the term, as is commonly done in the UK. The argument from consistency he uses does not convince me at all, as I have yet to see any evidence that there is some underlying consistency which is being flaunted by different countries, language variations, etc causing differences in naming conventions. DDStretch  (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

SomeHuman mentions the Chicago style Guide, so I thought I would look for a UK equivalent and found the Guardian Style guide. [[3]] Under Capitals they say there is a trend towards lower case. More specifically: geographical features, bridges lc, eg river Thames, the Wash, Sydney harbour, Golden Gate bridge, Monterey peninsula, Bondi beach, Solsbury hill (but Mount Everest). Sadly, many of these examples are not in the UK, so maybe local culture is affecting the UK spelling? Derek Andrews 20:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I have most easily to hand a copy of "The Oxford Manual of Style" (2002) ISBN 0198691750. The most relevant chapter is 4 (Capitalization and treatment of names), in particular pages 71 and 73 (4.1.3 Place names in particular river names). on p.71 we read the capitalization of proper nouns "has wide discrepancies in practice, and certain disciplines and contexts diverge from the standard style outlined below." On page 73, it describes the standard style for naming rivers (which is quite close to canals, and, by extension, their features, such as locks.) The most relevant extract is:

Capitalize river when it follows the name: the East River, the Hudson River. the Yellow River, the Susquehanna River. It is lower-case where (as in common British idiom) it precedes the name for purposes of description or clarification: the river Thames, [...] Well-known rivers commonly need no such clarification, as there is little risk of confusion: the Amazon, [...]A lower-case river may be added to any of these names where some clarification is required—to differentiate between the Amazon river and forest, or the Mississippi river and state. The name's context and the reader's expectation will determine whether it is appropriate to omit river from less well-known names: the Cherwell and the river Cherwell are both possible in different works; likewise the Thames and the river Thames (but the Thames River Authority, and the Thames River in Canada).

I think we can apply these rules by extension to the case of locks. In which case, on the grounds that the canals and places are not well-known, the standard form should be Foxton Locks, and so on. However, there could be some deviation from this (as quoted from page 71 in the book.) I need to find and look at my copy of Judith Butcher's book on Copy Editing to get a further viewpoint on this if required.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

user:SomeHuman has just reverted my reversion of his edits to Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal‎. Given that he has already been engaged in discussion about the advisability of this, and one is supposed to discuss such radical changes, even if his point of view prevails, I think his actions are not good in this instance.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read my explanation carefully. There is nothing misleading about "Elm Street" which is a standard spelling for street names everywhere, just as it is correct to have "Canal" or "River" capitalized where that is part of the name. Locks rarely have a name, they are just referred to by their location like the "Elm Street sewer" is.
Compare also (in that region for which the lock titles are being changed from Lock towards lock) with Bath Green Park railway station (and the many other stations with which I had nothing to do), and in the Kelston article (near Kelston lock) with the phrase "built by the Harrington family" (which internally links to one member). If it should be "Kelston Lock", surely it would have to be "Harrington Family". Furthermore, the article Semington has a referenced statement "The two locks at Semington are known as Buckley's (numbered 15) and Barrett's (16)", which demonstrates Semington locks not to be a true name of the locks. And it is more than likely that Buckley's lock is just named after Buckley locally, not an official designation, and has no need to spell it as "Buckley's Lock". — SomeHuman 15 Sep2007 22:40 (UTC)

As this seems to be the central part of your argument, let us debunk it once and for all. Waterways structures in the UK tend to have names. In fact they quite often have more than one name, or have both individual names, and collective names. Clearly the names are often derived from the names of local families, or from local places, but they are proper names, rather than a simple descriptive tag added on an ad-hoc basis to describe the structure. The structures are referred to consistently by these names in official notices issued by the navigation authority. Taken to its ogical conclusion, place names aren't proper names either, as they have their origin in a description of the place or the name of a landowner in times past. To give a concrete example of a name being used in an official document; Example of a listed canal lock Mayalld 10:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

And you should not have been as quick to assume bad faith in your above remark, as I only tried to prevent you from reverting other articles without my realizing that you had noticed the discussion. I did not have the time to come to this discussion page as there were some loose ends that had better been taken care off before starting the discussion here. — SomeHuman 15 Sep2007 22:45 (UTC)

There had been an important addition to the reply on my talk page, after EdJogg had put my first reaction from my talk page into this section (without notifying me of such, which would have been proper when my reactions are copied elsewhere as it would have make me realize that the matter of discussing was more urgent than it had appeared - no hard feelings, EdJogg, I know you're just being constructive). That was always my intention, but I had more important things to do than edit WP, and it must have slipped my mind. Apologies. EdJogg 23:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

To be read after the remark on capitalization in UK versus in the US in my first reaction copied somewhere above:

P.S.: Consistency within one article is very clearly prescribed by every style guide. If different capitalization is being used in article titles, not merely articles like 'List of ...' make the required consistency hard to attain, it is utterly impossible to be consistent for example in the article 'Lock (water transport)' that has to mention examples worldwide in fluent text while not logically allowing to create sections by region. Hence, following the consistency rule does not allow another approach than consistency across regions in article naming. Unless one would systematically (and rather immediately upon the creation of new articles) create redirect pages like 'Foxton lock' to article 'Foxton Lock' but contrarily redirect 'Soo Lock' to an article 'Soo lock', and that would be most hard to apply in a consistent way for locks outside the UK and the US as there is no clear standard for each country and would cause contradictory namings for locks within a such country: would the article have to be at 'Berendrecht Lock' or at 'Berendrecht lock'? Hardly anyone would go and check what articles and redirects exist for locks in that particular country only and if one does, one would already find contradictions to be abundant. Thus it appears best to keep it simple by overall consistency in naming articles. — SomeHuman 15 Sep2007 15:06–15:44 (UTC)

— SomeHuman 15 Sep2007 23:02 (UTC)

(numerous edit conflicts) I have read your explanation carefully. I believe that consistency is good, but, in line with Ralph Waldo Emerson, I also believe that "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds", and without attributiing a small mind to you (which you clearly do not have!) I urge you not to force consistency upon a situation where it does not exist in the real world without making use of original arguments and syntheses that are examples of WP:OR. In the case of Foxton Locks, that is the generally-used term in England and in the locality. WP:ENGVAR applies here, and its use falls in line with the Oxford Manual of Style standard use as I gave above. We write about Foxton Locks, but the locks at Foxton, completely in line with the guidelines given in the Oxford style guide. Your example which distinguishes "Semington Locks" and "the locks at Semington" falls exactly into the cases discussed in the Oxford Style Guide. The fact that Semington Locks have component parts which also possess names that are given proper noun status is a complete red-herring. Consider this: I and others are subjects of the United Kingdom. London, Birmingham, and Manchester are cities in the United Kingdom. Myself and others, and those cities all have names that are proper nouns. We and those cities are all component parts of the United Kingdom in the same sense as the cases you gave for Semington Locks. But this, does not mean that United Kingdom is not a proper noun because it contains component parts which also have proper nouns. We need to look at local usage, and pay attention to WP:ENGVAR here, and not force consistency by making suppositions onto a situation which appears not to have it in the real world. Whether other articles on wikipedia are consistent or not with the Foxton Locks style here is not the issue, as there is no guarantee that they are the "gold standard" by which to asses the names of the locks here. Perhaps it is they which should be changed if they were considered on a case-by-case basis, but they do not really prescribe a correct usage here?  DDStretch  (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

(There was no failure to assume good faith in any of my comments, by the way, as I was criticizing the actions, and not the intentions behind them (having an assumpton of "good faith" refers mostly to inferences about the intentions and other personal characteristics of the editor, whereas I was criticizing the actions and not the person behind the actions. But if I have offended you in any way, I do apologize. I just am rather unconvinced by the arguments here that correspond to your position.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC))

There's no red herring in making a difference between a description or a designation, and an actual name. We're not talking about names of manors, streets or waterways. Locks are exactly like railway stations, referred to by their location and if necessary with an extra descriptor like 'bottom' and 'top' for locks, or like 'east' and 'central' for stations. With one difference: it usually happens to be "<Placename> <descriptor> lock" and rather "<Descriptor> <Placename> railway station", the descriptor is placed with the other substantive and thus becomes part of the placename and capitalized in case of the railway stations. The railway stations in the identical region of Britain as these locks, do have titles without capitals in "railway station". Changing all those would be as big a chore as changing those of locks. And the argument I gave about consistency (see the linked article on locks) is a practical one that should not be counteracted by wikilawyering: one needs a solution. Give it a thought. — SomeHuman 15 Sep2007 23:37–23:53 (UTC)

(another edit conflict) I've been giving it some considerable thought ever since the issue was raised by your edits. First, do not think using the term "wikilawyering" here is at all useful or conducive to the debate here. I am merely pointing out problems in what I perceive are your arguments, and that one cannot appeal to the names other wikipedia articles have in order to establish correct usage, because there really is no guarantee that they are correct, or that they are "exactly like" each other, since language is not necessarily consistent in this way. And in making these points, I am not blindly appealing to or hiding behind wikipedia's policies, but I am offering real counter-arguments to your points. I do, however, make use of some of wikipedia's policies here to inform the position of keeping "Foxton Locks" and similar. However, putting that to one side, can I ask about something? You talk about a solution, and, by inference, a practical solution, which you state is the one you are advocating. Can I ask what exactly is the problem as you see it for which you are offering a solution? What goes wrong by having the things named something like "Foxton Locks" as opposed to "Foxton locks"?  DDStretch  (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Taking the case of Foxton Locks, I just did a brief websearch on "Foxton locks" as well as "Foxton Locks", and found the following: The official website names it "Foxton Locks" ( see here.) Additionally, the following seemingly authoritative sources use "Foxton Locks": The Foxton Inclined Plane Trust, The USA VisitBritain website (the official body concerned with tourism to the UK), A BBC website that contains information about the place, The Waterscape website. I couldn't find any that used the form "Foxton locks". So, in the case of Foxton Locks, it seems like a case can be made to keep Foxton Locks, as that would be reflecting usage (which is what wikiepdia should be doing) rather than prescribing correct usage, that is different from just "how it is".  DDStretch  (talk) 00:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

(another edit conflict) Sorry, I was not accusing by the term 'wikilawyering', but showing that we will have to do some thinking by ourselves. Derek Andrews had pointed out that there are lots of mentionings of "Lock", capitalized. That is correct, and my goal is not to have some kind of language purification, I'm sure one can find acceptable arguments for using "Foxton Lock(s)". But as I already explained, in most cases there has come a small village around a lock, and if one describes that one should capitalize, but not necessarily for the actual lock construction that is part of the waterway. And unlike almost every title one finds for numerous articles on the Internet, in newspapers, books etc, the Wikipedia guidelines are quite clear about using small characters in its article titles except for a number of cases (like there exist dictionaries that capitalize entries, others that do such only for a limited, or even for a very limited series of entries; it's a WP choice we do not have to discuss). The 'lock' or 'Lock' question is not one that appears to be answered by the WP guidelines themselves or by the external style guides it refers to. That would rather indicate to follow the general WP style of not capitalizing in WP titles. But if it needs further discussion, it should be solved together with 'railway station' or 'Railway Station'. As search engines do not allow to differenciate according to character case, establishing usage in England, in Scotland, in Australia, in the USA, in English language for French locks and stations, etc... would be hard. And if we would come to 'Lock' in one region but 'lock' in another, and perhaps 'boat lift' nearly everywhere, the article Lock (water transport) and a few others are going to give us a hard time editing and everyone a hard time reading whatever would be the result (that would undoubtedly cause numerous well-intended edits for consistency that will then have to be reverted etc). As I had explained on my talk page (now copied somewhere here above), the article cannot be split into sections per region, and uses in fluent text designations for locks from many places in the world. How can one make such article appear consistent - a must according to every style guide? How could editors of that article hope to get Featured Article status for 'their' work? How would it appear to the readers to see for instance "Soo lock" (US/Canada) and "Foxton Locks" (UK) side by side? And what would one think of an article on a municipality Greater Whatname that mentions "Greater Whatname Lock" and "Greater Whatname railway station"? — SomeHuman 16 Sep2007 00:32 (UTC)

(yet another edit conflict!) Something has just occurred to me that might give a different angle? The business of naming stations on Wikipedia has rankled with me for some time, but I have just realised why. I would normally talk about, or write, "Slough Station" or "Guildford Station", the context indicating that it was a railway station, and the capitalisation indicating that it was a placename. On WP, the titles are Guildford railway station and Slough railway station, but I would feel quite at liberty in articles to refer to Guildford Station if appropriate.

The same could potentially apply to locks, if this was such a big deal. "Foxton canal locks" could be a possible article title for Wikipedia: the capitalisation is correct and the usage consistent with railway stations, and it is clear what it refers to. The only slight problem, as just indicated, is that nobody would ever use the term: the locks are most commonly known as Foxton Locks, and hence, as probably the most basic of all the article naming-conventions at WP, this is the name the article should have.

EdJogg 00:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The naming of Uk railway station articles, whether for example they should be called Glasgow Central station, Glasgow Central Railway Station, Glasgow Central railway station, Central Station Glasgow, etc, etc, (just to take only one station) is another highly contentious area (see Talk:Glasgow Central station) and has led to edit wars; and much heated discussion on both article talk pages and WikiProject trains talk pages (such as Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (UK stations)). It provides a perfect example of why these contentous article renaming edits should mave been subject to discussion and consensus obtained before they were started.Pyrotec 10:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "There's no red herring in making a difference between a description or a designation, and an actual name.", This statement, made above, is the root one that I question. I question it because it is true only if we really are dealing with a difference between a "description or designation" (as you put it) rather than "an actual name". In other words, it begs the question, because it assumes that it has already been settled that this difference applies in this case, and I don't consider it has been. This yet-to-be-established issue along with all the other points about local usage, etc, are why I don't consider the case in favour of using "Foxton locks" to be convincing at this point. Despite what some may think, I am trying to be constructive here, as I do not think the proposed moves are obviously useful, since they seem to be more like a move away from a descriptive mode of operation for wikipedia to a more prescriptive one in terms of how people ought to view the ways in which certain things are known. I cannot see how arguments from consistency are convincingly applicable in the cases used so far. I think I do understand the arguments offered, but I consider that they seem flawed in the ways I've outlined above. The questions I asked are there because I want to know if (a) there is some way in which things on wikipedia will go wrong if we keep "Foxton Locks" rather than change it to "Foxton locks" (I'm using this as the exemplar of the problem), or (b) whether it is more of a stylistic issue, or (c) it needs to be done because of a need for philosophical tidiness (to summarize it). My underlying assumptions are that, (i) although consistency is useful in many cases, distortion will happen if we force it upon a particular set of situations where there is no guaranteed consistency at the level of the naming of things in real-life., and (ii) our job here is to describe things as they are used in everyday or real life, and is not to prescribe things as they ought to be used in everyday or real life.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For placenames one capitalizes. In practice, the location of a lock has formed kind of a small village and is then the name for that. The articles on locks are about the constructions (lock doors, a weir, a backpump, a lock chamber). As in the case of railway stations, one might have to link the location named Foxton Lock to an article Foxton lock. Most articles are on... the lock construction. Like most articles on railway stations are on the station itself and not on a city quarter named after it, it rather indicates not to capitalize.
Just realize we need to solve usage in an article where we do indicate the lock, boat lift, or inclined plane construction, and/or the actual station - which must be consistent in capitalizing or not.

I have to admit that perhaps linguistically and based on common usage, one could go either way (I already explained that extablishing 'common usage' for constructions and such in the several countries, will be near-impossible). And I have to admit that I realize there are numerous railway fans and users of trains and stations, which would create havoc when trying to make them follow the "Lock" example. Furthermore, I had found quite a number of articles where "boat lift" had not been capitalized. In the interest of the WP readers and WP contributors, I think it could be more feasable to convince the relatively few people who contribute at lock articles (often stubs) and those articles' readers (perhaps almost limited to the same group of contributors)... at least one might hope to find not as many nutty contributors and WPchatboxers than at railway station articles. — SomeHuman 16 Sep2007 01:09 (UTC)

Please, also notice my statement upon which you had an edit conflict, in which I did insert the term necessarily. That and the above should explain that any motivation for a change at the locks, is not some High Principle. But neither should it be such to keep 'Lock'. And consistency within an article is indeed enforced, that should not be a point of discussion at WP. The point of your arguments does not offer that. — SomeHuman 16 Sep2007 01:16–01:21 (UTC)

(edit conflict that luckily contains a solution to the consistency within an article) Ok, having read the problem as stated, I offer the following solutions (making use of a point just made by EdJogg). In terms of the problems with the article Lock (water transport), one solves it using the same approach he advocates: where consistency within an article requires it to be "Foxton locks", one writes [[Foxton Locks|Foxton locks]]. That completely solves the problem. Any comment made about this on an application for FA status gets robustly answered by making the point that there are country differences in the most commonly used name, and that the approach used satisfies both within-article consistency and the requirement for using the most common used term for the places under discussion. However, I doubt the issue would be raised, since consistency would be apparent in the writing if this solution were adopted. The problem would come when Foxton Locks went up for FA status, but that can be countered using very similar arguments, if not the same solution. This would also minimize the number of edits made for consistency by other editors, and, if required, a note can be made in the article pointing out that there appears to be differences between regions in the way in which the names are most commonly written. I think this sentence: But as I already explained, in most cases there has come a small village around a lock contains an assumption that has yet to be established, and in a reasonable number of cases I know about in the UK, any surrounding village largely preceded the canal. In any case, I think has become a bit irrelevant if we are committed to using the most common written form of the name. The arguments about editors having to do more work in editing is diminished if the cases are handled as I suggest above, and, in any case, it is more important to pay attention to providing accurate descriptions than making things convenient or easy for editors: I would have thought that a committed editor would just buckle down and do it, as I have done in many other cases where editor convenience needs to be put at a lower priority to being accurate and appropriate in our writings.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Your assumption of 'common usage' is entirely a personal feeling. But you misunderstand what I am trying to say: In the UK as elsewhere, there would have been a village "Foxton" after which the lock was referred to from the planning stage, the "Foxton lock". A lock is rarely built in the middle of that village (which would require a canal to zig-zag from one village centre to the next), it is usually at its outskirts. Only after the lock had become in use, there would have come a few houses (the lock keeper's, a small pub for the boatsmen who must abide their time for the lock to function, etc) that created a separate much smaller village. That environment gets the placename "Foxton Lock". But that does not say anything about "Foxton Lock" also havig become the name of the lock at Foxton Lock, which lock is not a placename, and in fact it would mean that "Foxton Lock" would be the name for two entirely different things. Notice that not a single 'lock' article describes the place (at best one sees the lock keeper's cottage by the lock as one image caption calls it, showing the lock and the cottage behind it), the topic is invaryably the lock. I'm sure the spelling as "Foxton Lock" will occur for the lock itself, but whether that is 'most common usage' in fluent text (which is what we need to establish if we want to establish 'most common usage' as the main indicator as how to spell a Wikipedia title) and such only where it describes the lock construction and not its surroundings, is to my knowledge not as yet established.
Though it would allow writing an article with FA status (but less easily maintaining it as people would be inclined to 'improve' by eliminating redirects), your solution, and in fact a slightly improved version, had been thought of: just read my very P.S. of 2007-09-15 15:06–15:44 [copied into this section afterwards], from "Unless" onwards. I suggest a night's rest. — SomeHuman 16 Sep2007 01:48–02:35 (UTC)

(another edit conflict) Your assumption of 'common usage' is entirely a personal feeling. I refer you to the websearch I carried out and made the subject of a message with, above. "Common usage" as I used it here is not a mere personal feeling, but was based on actual factual usage that I looked into. I did read your p.s., and I am not convinced that prescription of names here in order to make things easy for editors is the best way forward: it is accepted that writing a good article is hard work, and the problems you outline are merely part of the hard work required. I have done much hard work like this in various articles, and I know others who have done equal if not more hard work than this: it is just part of the job for some areas when one is trying to describe things in an encyclopaedia, which I have done both on here and in my own professional writing life. There are many things, some of them even already having articles on wikipedia, that have the same name but which are different things, so I don't see how this means we must somehow make them different, as the issue is already handled in a variety of ways on wikipedia. Your point about "fluent text" seems an odd one to raise for a UK-based place, with reputable website sources already listed by myself, written in English, which is my first language in which I have professional-level use. Or is it that you require a certain number of independent uses of "Foxton Locks" in "fluent texts" (which needs to be unpacked and operationalized, and is not the subject of any advice on wikipedia as far as I can see in matters related to the one we are discussing here.) Or is your point mostly about the names that would occur in other languages which would need to be translated into professional-level English? Or is it something else? I do think your use of "fluent text" here needs to be explained more, as it seems to be a condition that you say any source should have in order for it to count towards a view about what is "common use". "Fluent text" certainly isn't mentioned at all in, for example, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Rationale or other places, and the importance you give it here would suggest that it should be easy to find. So, I'm not sure everyone would at the moment concede the point about the sources having to be "fluent texts" to establish common usage, probably because "fluent texts" could have a number of different meanings and means of operationalisation (i.e., number of ways in which "fluency" is established). Before the point is conceded, we need to know which meaning it has, and how it would be applied to categorize articles as being either fluent texts or not fluent texts. We need this in order to avoid any kind of error being unwittingly committed which would be related to or similar to the fallacy of equivocation.  DDStretch  (talk) 02:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: to your PS: I'm not sure how your solution is an improved one (which you added in a later edit): as you say, it would require a lot more of difficult work than the solution I am advocating. What I am saying is that one merely makes the article's actual names the commonly used one (i.e., Foxton Lock"), and then, when "Foxton lock" is required for within-article consistency, one uses the "pipe technique" to get it as and when one needs it. As far as I can see, all the issues you have raised are covered in this way. In which case, we would now need to discuss the "fluent text" condition you state is required. The problem of how to name an article written in English of locks in other countries which would necessarily often be translations into English from another language, is covered to some extent in Wikipedia:Translation, and the different languages' conventions can then be applied or not to a greater or lesser degree, including any assumed convention about naming things on wikipedia. In other words, it need not have any bearing on the issue here about the naming of locks in the UK. This is particularly the case given that some skill in the particular languages involved in the translations and some experience of doing this kind of thing might be advisable. In other words, in these cases, other particular issues need to be considered and some flexibility in naming may arise because entirely literal translations can often not quite work well enough, and must be tweaked.  DDStretch  (talk) 03:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

(double edit conflict once again - notice that I inserted one prepared sentence on "FA status" in my latest comment, which I'm saving now, after your reading)

By 'fluent text', I do not mean any quality standard of writing, but as I had indicated by italicizing fluent text and WP title, it simply means one should disregard titles and captions, as in those a term that is not supposed to be capitalized normally, is often found capitalized. And search engines tend to index more strongly based on titles than or content. It means one cannot think of just googling and counting hits or pages. And in, if you prefer, normal text, does for instance "Foxton Lock" refer to the locality (irrelevant), or to the lock construction and function (relevant).

What are you referring to by "PS: to your PS" and "(which you added in a later edit)", the P.S. I had referred to is the one that I stated to have been copied from my talk page and which original date and time I gave to find it back (it's the second coloured box containing a copy from my talk page) – and it was here well before you presented your solution.

I know all about piping and using redirect pages. The improvement by the latter, if not obvious as I had assumed, was found in my edit comment in the history of this talk page: "insert 'improved version' (by immediately providing redirect pages ensuring one will find an existing article if one needs it and making it easier for editors)". In short 1) an editor does not need to worry about piping, which also makes maintenance and future editing a little easier; 2. one would not create red links to an assumedly missing article "Foxton lock" while there already exists a "Foxton Lock" article, or vice versa, which red link is likely to make the editor decide not to put a link in.

I'm not concerned about translating articles. Please read what I write, I have already explained the same things two or three times. The example I gave about the "Berendrechtsluis" in Dutch language requires an article on WP to be titled either "Berendrecht lock" or "Berendrecht Lock". As usage in English language (American English, British English, ...) and WP guidelines do not make clear which is correct, the editor needs to find out whatever is 'common usage' in English, or perhaps simply just whatever is most common on the English-language WP, in either case not for UK or US locks, but for locks in Belgium. Should that editor check all articles on locks in Belgium, or only on the locks in the Dutch-speaking Flanders, or in the Dutch language area of Flanders and the Netherlands? How can that editor find out which usage prevails: Is there a category for locks in Belgium? (I'm sure there is not one for those in Flanders.) And do you really think that an editor who wants to create an article on the Berendrecht lock, will know all what has been discussed here and how he/she should decide on the spelling of the title?
By the way, the Berendrecht lock is a trifle bigger than Bradford lock at Bradford Lock. What I mean is, this Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia written in English, not one on English topics or written from the viewpoint of English writers. As a professional writer with clearly above average capacities in writing WP articles and an interest in locks, you did not create an article on the world's largest one, according to lock (water transport) (perhaps not accurate anymore or is it still), and your English attitude will not entice others to do so either. — SomeHuman 16 Sep2007 03:51–04:53 (UTC)

Ye gods! One weekend away from the PC, and all hell has broken loose! I have to agree with several previous contributors in this discussion that it was not appropriate simply to dive in and carry out a mass renaming of dozens of articles without discussion. Regardless of what WP:MOS might say on the subject (and the MOS is far from clear on this point in any case), making a huge number of changes, simply to correct a style problem without engaging in discussion is not the way to proceed. Indeed, it seems to demonstrate a degree of bad faith, in that it presents other editors with a fait-acompli. Sure we can go through, and back out all the renames, but it moves the starting point for the debate, by having the articles named the way that SomeHuman wants them named, rather than the long term status quo on such articles. On the MoS issue, I am not persuaded that the articles should have been renamed. Many waterways features incorporate the names of places, but the whole of the name is a proper noun. Hyde Bank Tunnel, for example is the name of a tunnel, it is what that tunnel is called, rather than being a shorthand for "the un-named canal tunnel near Hyde Bank", as such, the Harvard University example is the nearest analogy that matches. Mayalld 07:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree except for the fait-accompli bit. His changes can (and are) being undone.Pyrotec 07:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite! However, it did have all the appearance of having been deliberately done without discussion, in the hope that unless a clear consensus to revert was forthcoming, the edit would become the status quo. I agree that all the edits should be reverted, and that we should then have the discussion. I've started a discussion on the subject on the MOS talk page. Perhaps we can resolve this before SomeHuman relegates Caernarfon Castle to mere Caernarfon castle Mayalld 07:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm impressed with User:SomeHuman's logical argument for his changes, but I'm afraid the result looks wrong to me. And there must be serious concerns about these kind of mass-changes, unless every article's TalkPage gets an explanation, preferably 7 days before the edit is actually carried out. It's especially disappointing to hear that he has re-applied his personal preferences after other editors (likely more experienced) have reverted. PalestineRemembered 08:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I can see that SomeHuman has argued a rationale for the changes, and that whilst I am unconvinced by the rationale is not errant nonsense as such. However, we must keep in mind that this rationale was not presented up front, but after the event to justify the actions taken. As SomeHuman can manage to put the argument together, he/she is clearly an intelligent person, and an intelligent person would know that the actions he was about to undertake would be controversial, and ought to be discussed in advance. Even if he could claim to be unaware in advance, it would have been blindingly obvious to anybody that it was controversial once other editors started reverting the edits and moves, and to continue with the edits or to re-apply reverted edits was highly inappropriate. I'm not sure that notices on each articles talk page was necessary, as we ought to work to a single convention, rather than on an ad-hoc page by page basis, but discussion here was vital, and didn't happen.Mayalld 09:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not impressed, for reasons given below. Furthermore, an annoying fact of the edits were that after responses to his messages had been posted, the editor went back and edited his messages. in one case, this added new information to the message that would have affected my reply to him. the editor claimed it was not important when he made the edits, but adding substance to a response like this is not a particular fair way of arguing. I speak as someone whose professional life involved research into matters of real-life argument and discussion, informal fallacies, etc.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Since it was myself ho took this user to task on saturday evening, I would like to put my view of the whole set of incidents here, as I believe a mere taking of it to the MOS pages may not be enough:

• A very large number of contentious edits and page moves have been made by this user.
• When asked to discuss them, a discussion eventually began (here), but, meanwhile, despite it then being obvious that the edits were contentious, further edits and page moves were made without discussion or referral to WP:RM for contentious page moves.
• The discussion was characterised by (on that editor's part) a different style of writing that hindered matters, and so it was only after some time had passed, the real reason for the initiation of the edits ensued.
• The real reason appears to be that the editor had had difficulty knowing what to do for a capitalization scheme for a canal structure in Belgium, and to resolve the issue to his satisfaction had attempted to establish a new style guideline for the canal structures that meant the page moves and contentious content edits had to be made.
• The other matters raised by the editor about why his scheme was (to him) the one we must comply with could possibly thus be ex post facto rationalisations, and, although some of them merit discussion, they cannot be done in a climate of attempted fait accompli which rides roughshod over established and verified correct use of capitalisations schemes.
• Specifically, the use of archaic meanings to words (e.g., "fluent") which, when used in the context of "fluent text", was certainly misleading and hindered matters. This only became clear after I had pointed out that there was a possible problem with errors based on Equivocation and asked for clarification, which was exactly the correct prediction of what would have otherwise happened, as we see. More over, when exposed, the declared intended meaning raised such an elementary point that to explain it hardly seemed worthwhile making.
• The previous clarification also indicated that the evidence (taken from authoritative sources) I had supplied to him about the naming of "Foxton Locks" had not been considered at all by him, and he had simply restated his prescriptive interpretation of the entire area which tried to enforce a false consistency upon matters which have no guaranted consistency, and which were, in this and other specific cases, just incorrect.
• In response to these points, the editor then made offensive ad hominem remarks (about my "English attitude"), along with using a kind of argument that involved the fact that I did not write an article about some large lock (though what is meant to be implied by this is cetrtainly not clear in his text.).
• He asks what advice should be given to editors who want to write various articles and do not know what capitalization scheme to use? My response is that they should take advice and discuss the matter with others, if they are unsure. If they make an error, the body of editors will advise and correct the mistakes. What they should not do is engage in a unilateral set of contentious edits and page moves, without prior discussion, to fix some kind of new policy that conflicts with established emergent conventions for specific cases, and then still continue to make similar edits, page moves, and reversions of "damage limitation" edits of his contentious edits once the contentious nature of them has been made known to him.

For these reasons, I believe that the matter should be seriously considered for referral to some other place (the Village Pump, WP:AN/I or somewhere else is unsure to me at this time.)  DDStretch  (talk) 08:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The Way Forward (section break to facilitate editing)

I have to say that only one editor comes out of this looking bad, and it isn't those who reverted the edits! The initial edits bordered on vandalism, and the robust defence of the indefensible that SomeHuman put up, including ad-hominem attacks, together with his actions in continuing the actions once it was clear that they were controversial is very poor practice.

As to the next steps, I've added a discussion on the MoS talk page to see if we can get some sort of broader consensus there. I would hope that, notwithstanding the actions of SomeHuman we can resolve this reasonably, and without it getting uglier or needing escalation. I would suggest;

1. SomeHuman undertakes not to apply or re-apply any similar changes until the situation is resolved.
2. SomeHuman accepts that pending a consensus to the contrary, moves will be reverted to the SQ as existed before his edits
3. Any articles that weren't previously capitalised, stay uncapitalised pending a consensus
4. New articles are created according to the preference of the first editor for the time being
5. We all allow time for the MOS discussion to form an opinion, before taking that discussion as a guide for this discussion.
6. We all respect the eventual consensus here.

If we can't move on this basis, I would agree that WP:AN/I is probably the next step, but I would like to allow SomeHuman an opportunity to see reason before we escalate.Mayalld 09:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with those who wish to maintain capitalisation of names. For example, Foxton Locks.Martin Cordon 11:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to revert the lock names on the Kent and Avon cabal to restore the status quo. I've only done some of them, as it is a lengthy business and takes a considerable amount of time. In the case of one page rename, it cannot be done, because SomeHuman mucked up the page move I'm trying to revert. The lock in question is Little Bedwyn Lock which he originally renamed to Bedwyn little lock! There may well be other difficult ones that cannot be reverted without administrator intervention, and it does illustrate the problems brought about by this whole sorry affair. Is there a friendly admin person who knows about the issues here who would be able to do the renaming required? I'll have to be away from editing for a few hours, but will be able to continue my reversions after that.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I tried as well. This is the process I suspect needs to be followed Wikipedia:Requested moves. There's Little Bedwyn Lock, Little Bedwyn lock, and Bedwyn little lock!!!Pyrotec 13:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC. Alternatively, you could try User:Slambo, he will have seen this before on UK railway stations article naming.Pyrotec 13:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Slambo has now very kindly changed the name back to Little Bedwyn Lock.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. On another matter, SomeHuman has reacted very badly to comments on his talk page just now, and maintained that he didn't even edit Foxton Locks. On checking, I see that he did not edit the article, but he did initiate a redirect of Foxton locks on the grounds that locks should not be capitalized. I withdraw my specific comments about him carrying out contentious and undiscussed page-moves to Foxton Locks. My problem was that in the morass of trying to sort out the page-moves and edits, I got momentarily confused. the main issue, which he is trying to avoid by focusing on the mistake I made, however, still applies. He carried out page move to numerous articles. He maintains that most of these were stub articles (and by implication seems to suggest these wouldn't matter), but in fact to give but two counter examples, Anderton Boat Lift, and Hay Inclined Plane are not stub articles, but he carried out page moves on them. For canal structures outside the remit of this project, but which had been edited by people, some of whom are members of this project, he also moved The Boat Lift of Saint-Louis-Arzviller to Saint-Louis-Arzviller inclined plane on the apparent grounds that it looked like an inclined plane rather than a boat lift. So, for that one mistake I made, I apologise to him, and replace the specific mention of Foxton Locks with the two examples I have mentioned with respect to contentious page moves.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC) .

He moved Caen Hill Locks, which is a B-class article and Peterborough Lift Lock - I've just rated it start-class (but its not far off a B-class).We can do down his contribution list one by one if he wants to claim he moved only stubs.Pyrotec, 17:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't apologize too much. True he didn't move Foxton Locks, he just added Foxton locks, but let us not forget that the only reason that the redirect page was added was to facilitate his copyediting mission to decapitalise in the text of other pages. Mayalld 20:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

People may like to see what SomeHuman is now doing on his talk page User talk:SomeHuman> A view of the page history and what he has removed of relevance here may also be informative.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Where we are going with this

I've just posted at User Talk:SomeHuman trying to suggest a way forward, urging him to accept not that he was wrong, but that as a lone voice in the wilderness he should accept that a U-1 Consensus exists on this issue, and that the consensus should prevail. For my part, despite my reservations in respect of his good faith expressed earlier, I'm prepared to accept that (absent any further escalation of this dispute) the edits were in good faith, even if misguided, and I would urge others to do likewise. I hope User:SomeHuman will agree with this as a way forward that allows us all to move on without lasting acrimony, and without the seemingly inevitable time wasting dispute resolution process Mayalld 07:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Ddstretch and User:EdJogg have both contributed to the discussion there, and it looks hopeful that peace may break out :-) Mayalld 15:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed addition to MoS

Given that the root cause of this problem would appear to be a lack of clarity in WP:MOS, I've proposed an addition to the MoS at WT:MOS which I believe addresses the issue by providing clarity. The proposed wording borrows heavily from the Institutions wording, as I believe that this is the best analogy that we can follow. I've attempted not to be confrontational by specifically avoiding canal related examples, and added a sentence which presumes that geographic features and built structures usually have a proper name rather than being Innominate and the name being merely descriptive. That is, I believe, the issue upon which the disagreement over capitalisation of lock names hinges.Mayalld 10:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It hasn't exactly whipped them up in a frenzy! I suppose that means that nobody is that upset about it, but I'd love more support before actually putting it in. Mayalld 15:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, you're too impatient. Changes to Wikipolicies can take weeks, or months, to come to fruition. There's mileage in it, but you may need to raise awareness within the general community, and make sure you're sticking to all the procedures. Best of luck! EdJogg 16:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I shall persevere. I don't want it to vanish from the radar. I guess that if nobody says anything on the subject for a few weeks though the community will assume that the issue has gone away, or do I have that wrong. If I'm screwing up anything, somebody tell me before I make an arse of myself, please! And if keeping the topic "live" is needed, I'd be grateful for any help! Mayalld 20:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not leave it for another week for comments. If no more are supplied, or if only supportive statements are supplied, then how about the following as a sensible way forward for this? Pay attention to the comments already given and announce an edit to the MoS in the same way you've already done. If no more radical alterations are suggested to the revised additions, after one more week, then go ahead and add the material, after announcing your intention to do so in advance. That way, no one can say they weren't given the option of objecting or commenting. Now, if objections are supplied, then you probably need to try to accommodate them by revising the proposed insertions in some way, especially if the objection is unopposed or if it has merit. This almost certainly will take more time for the addition to finally be made by yourself. As EdJogg states, there seems no way to rush this.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologies if this has already been mentioned, but IWA has a Style Guide [[4]] that favors capitalization. Derek Andrews 10:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Reusing maps

I have noticed that there is a request for a map for the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation. I produced one for the River Don Navigation, which covers all of the SSYN, as the RDN became part of the SSYN in 1895. Is there a way to reuse the map (which is stored as a template), but to somehow change the title? I do not really want to just copy the template and modify the title, as it makes keeping things up to date more difficult. I have tried putting both titles in the title box, but it makes it much wider. Bob1960evens 19:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

In theory yes (but I don't know how to do it), some of the esoteric templates (for example the assessment templates on the talkpages) should be able to determine whether it is a SSYN or RDN and use the appropriate title. If you don't get any answer, do a copy & paste. 20:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyrotec (talk • contribs)

In practice it was actually quite simple. Edit the map template to replace the name with {{{1}}}, then call the template as {{River Don Navigation map|Whatever Name}}Mayalld 21:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Threadjack - that map is very interesting. I think it would suit the MBB canal page I've been editing much better than the current coordinates table. How does one create such a map? Parrot of Doom 21:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Easiest way is to look at an existing map, copy it to sandbox, and play with it! The legend page shows all the various icons you have in the toolbox Mayalld 21:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I would urge you to keep the coordinates tables as well. You can see the line of the canal on Google Maps (Satellite) and Google Earth, showing all points, either by includinga a {{kml}} tag in the article, or by selecting any coordinate and selecting the Map of all coordinates in the article box on the right. Oosoom ^Talk to me 00:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok I added the kml tag, and that works nicely. I also found this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_Waterways/Waterways_legend, and the template here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:River_Don_Navigation_map&action=edit. So I think I'll give that a go tonight :) The page is getting a bit confused and messy though, I'd appreciate help formatting it if anyone can spare the time. Parrot of Doom 10:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Have a go. There are other canal templates in Category:Waterway routemap templates if you want to try a simpler one, or just a different one.Pyrotec 14:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I did it. Well, a first draft. Here it is Template:Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal map. There are some icons that are missing - would anyone like me to create some more? It would be fairly easy for me to do, and would ensure the map I made, makes more sense (with regard to missing wharfs etc). Also, anybody got any ideas on how best to integrate this map template into the MBB canal page, without it looking massively complicated? Parrot of Doom 22:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Integrating the map template into the canal article is easy; just include the following text at the appropriate place:

{{Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal map}}

and the map will be included. --VinceBowdren 08:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted help on how to include it in the article without everything getting muddied up Parrot of Doom 10:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I recognise (not quite the right word) bit from Agecroft downwards, having got my first two degrees from Salford in 1976 & 2006.Pyrotec 19:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't suppose you have any piccies I could have.....? Parrot of Doom 22:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Shots from the top of Chemistry tower (no longer there but between Peel building and Salford library/museum) taken about 1975, possibly more. Might have some nearer the Irwell. I need to do some attic trawling, all will be 35 mm transparencies, but I can scan them.Pyrotec 08:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be very helpful mate. Anything you have would be great. For instance, the canal is no longer visible as it runs past the University, its just a grass bank (I bet not many know the canal is under there - the images are in Wikimedia commons, accessible from the MBB canal page), but you may have images of the same area showing less development, and that would certainly add to the story of the canal and it's abandonment. Parrot of Doom 20:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it a case of missing icons, or just missing icons with the correct colour-scheme? If there is an ABC123 icon (made-up example) in dark-blue and dark-green and you wanted it in light-blue and grey (another made-up example) that is quite easy to do. 10 minute job or less; with an svg plug-in and Notepad; otherwise its a graphics package job.Pyrotec 19:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

For icons where you just want to change the colours you don't even need an svg plugin, just a text editor will do. Most of these cases are existing icons needed in the right colours, though there will be a need for more icons at some time. Hmallett 20:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this is more an argument over naming. I normally use Mozilla Firefox and with that I cannot access the icon source code. So I've loaded Adobe svg viewer; so when I wish to change a colour I logon using Internet Explorer and the svg viewer allows me access to the source code which I copy and paste into Notepad. I can't do that under Firefox.Pyrotec 20:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Sorry, you are right - I've just done what you said with Firefox. That makes life a lot easy. I loaded Adobe svg viewer and Inkspace because I read in wikipedia that I needed them; or, alternatively, I needed Corel.Pyrotec 20:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyright

Just a reminder to everyone that when copying or modifying icons you need to pay some attention to the correct use of the copyright licence.

When creating a new icon from an existing one it is important to preserve any copyright conditions of the original. If the original has a GFDL licence then you need to preserve that GFDL on every derivative icon, mentioning the original author (or all previous authors) - giving attribution. This is a fundamental principle behind GFDL and no work based on a GFDL original can become public domain (unless you are the absolute creator in which case you could republish as PD).

When I create an original I use PD to make this process easier for others, but if I modify a previous work then I have to copy the original licence if it was not PD and credit the author, as well as myself as a joint author. I am not sure whether there is a prescribed form, but this is how I did a similar thing: . This is some extra effort but needs to be done. :) Oosoom ^Talk to me 08:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Assesment vs stub class template

Some articles have a "canal stub" template, however since there's an assesment project now, this duplicates and confuses things slightly. E.g. Old Turn Junction is assessed as Start class, but the stub template is still on the article. Should the template be removed and the assesment changed to stub? Or should non-stub-assessed articles with the template simply have the template removed? Hmallett 16:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion (and it is what I do when I remember) assess the article: (1) if it is a stub, set class=stub on the talkpage & template can be left or removed; (2) if it is better than stub, set the class on the talkpage and remove the stub template from the article. I would also assess Old Turn Junction as Start class, so the stub template can go.Pyrotec 16:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Having worked through them all, I can tell you that every article with the canal-stub template now has the UKW template. This means that they should appear in the assessment matrix as unassessed, As articles are assessed I think it would be better to remove the stub template, even if the article is assessed as a stub, simply to remove duplication. I won't actually do this unless there's a concensus to do this though. Hmallett 22:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I would argue against doing this. The stub assessment is on the talk page, whereas the stub template is on the article page (and hence more immediately visible to the casual reader). We really need a bot to ensure that the two are kept in step. Mayalld 05:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mayalld here. I would suggest that the 'stub assessment' is there to confirm that the page has been identified as a stub, not to replace it. The article stub template is intended for ALL WP users, and is partly present to encourage participation from 'new' editors. The talk page assessment is mainly for project members and, of course, will not be seen by readers unless they open the talk page, and look at the project banner.

There is the side issue that {{UK-canal-stub}} is intentionally separate from the project. If (which is highly unlikely in this case) the project should be wound-up through lack of input, any project-related templates would need to be converted to something else, and any unmarked stub articles would need to be re-marked.

EdJogg 08:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You beat me to it. The placing of a stub template on the actual article is Wikipedia policy, intended to attract additions from everybody who can contribute, even to recruit peoiple to Wikipedia. It will only be seen on a Talk page by the really keen! :) Oosoom ^Talk to me 08:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That's fine by me, it just creates confusion when the article says it's a stub, and the assessment says it's start class. If we can keep them in sync either by bot or just manually it'll make things clearer. Hmallett 09:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to put this into context, are we really saying that a article rated as B-class on the talk page needs a stub template on the article? I aim to take stub-templates off articles that I rate as Start or higher, but I don't always see them and I might be rating them for multiple projects. Admittedly, I don't tend to remove bio stubs as I'm not into biographies.Pyrotec 20:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No, we are saying that an article rated at anything above stub class should NOT have a {{UK-canal-stub}} on the main page. The two are incompatible. I'm going to do some cross checking between the two, and hopefully do the following actions;

1. If the article has been assessed, at UKW start-FA classes, remove stub template
2. If the article has been assessed, at UKW stub class, add the stub template
3. If the article has not been assessed, but contains {{UK-canal-stub}}, assess as UKW stub class

Is that looking clearer? Mayalld 20:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Mayalld's comment is what I was trying to say. The actions he has proposed have already been done by me for many of the canal articles. Hmallett 09:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I've run through, and rectified all the mismatches (points 1 & 2). I'll sort point 3 soon

On a related point, please look out for 'waterway' stubs that should really be UK-canal-stubs. For example, I got about half-way along the K&A locks (starting from Bristol) before other work intervened... --EdJogg 15:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just done point 3... Hmallett 16:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)