User talk:Dave.Dunford/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Lymm Radio

Hi Dave, not sure why you thought my edit on the Lymm page wasn't appropriate? I can see why you might regard it as advertising but we are a true community venture run entirely by volunteers - and highly regarded in the village. I do feel we should have recognition on the page. 78.151.25.145 (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia is not about awarding recognition. See WP:PROMO, as noted in my edit summary. It's nothing personal, but see also WP:COI and WP:SPA – if, as I suspect, you are involved in the venture, you're probably not the best person to write about it neutrally. Dave.Dunford (talk) 07:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

November 12 edit

Hi Dave.Dunford, I've reverted the change that your script made to November 12. There is a recommendation at WP:DOYSTYLE that the string – is used rather than any other character. I think this recommendation applies only to the character after the year. If you're able to update your script to ignore these characters, that would be great. Cheers, Kiwipete (talk) 03:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Strange convention, but fair enough. It's not my script, so I won't be updating it. Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Holmesfield Edit

Dave, I have noted your rebukes of my grammatical use on the above page. Can I point out that the grammar source you have quoted is not some sort of industry standard adopted by Wikipedia and it is merely a matter of opinion as to whether it is correct or not. Can I also point out that what you appear to have in grammatical knowledge you appear to lack in courtesy to other editors and simple manners when editing posts that are not yours. Can I please refer you to Wikipedia Etiquette (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette ). This clearly states "Treating others with respect is key to collaborating effectively" and that the Golden Rule is "Treat others the way you would want to be treated". I would be obliged if you would avoid in the future amending any of my posts for purely grammatical reasons AlphaCentauri58 (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but I refuse to undertake not to correct your grammar (or anyone else's), and I dispute your claim that my grammatical corrections are "a matter of opinion" or a "rebuke". I'm not claiming the source I quoted is authoritative, but it merely the first one that came up on Google when I was seeking to explain why "because of" is preferable to "due to" in the context you used it (there are plenty of other grammatical authorities that willl tell you the same thing). I have been an editor and writer for much of my professional career, and it is mostly that experience and knowledge that I bring to Wikipedia as a wikignome. I'm sorry you were offended, but I don't think I have anything to apologise for my corrections or interaction – I wasn't "rebuking" you on your talk page, I just wanted a) to improve the article and b) for you to understand why I'd undone your changes, in an attempt to prevent an edit war. Dave.Dunford (talk) 14:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you honestly think that your edits are improving the Wikipedia experience ? They are so minor do you really think people care about your amendments ? All you are engaging in is a very abnormal self gratification at my expense. I’m sure many Wikignomes do improve Wikipedia. I’m really not sure that you are one of them 212.159.79.245 (talk) 19:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

My only interest is in improving the Holmesfield article and following Wikipedia policies, which you have singularly failed to do. Please assume good faith, remain civil and, if you feel so strongly, defend your edits at Talk:Holmesfield. Dave.Dunford (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you - and Happy New Year

Hello, Dave, and Happy New Year to you.

I am writing to thank you for all the work you are doing on Cheshire articles, particularly the ones in which I have been involved. You are carrying out the improvements and corrections that I should be doing, but for which I have neither the skill nor the patience. Please keep it up!

I received a Christmas present from my children in the form of the Pevsner Derbyshire volume, and I am aware of your interest in the county, in which are my paternal roots. So, when I have completed the LBs in South Yorkshire, I plan to start on Derbyshire. I expect that you will keep a keen eye on what I am doing, and will be willing to improve and correct the work as it progresses. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Peter I. Vardy: Thanks Peter, and Happy New Year to you too. I'll look forward to seeing the Derbyshire articles, and doubtless contribute, but my main area for contributions will probably continue to be Cheshire, as I'm now writing a monthly column for Cheshire Life so I'm out and about in the county even more often than I used to be. My contributions, partly as a result, are a bit random and arbitrary (and these days I'm dividing my effort between Wikipedia and Wikidata, where every LB has a data item) but I'm grateful that you put the infrastructure there in the first place. Incidentally, what do you think of the new-look NHLE? Dave.Dunford (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Will you be adding a CoI declaration? Wise, praps, given your comments in the first section above.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rocknrollmancer: Hi there. Can you clarify? Not sure where my perceived conflict of interest is or what comments you're referring to. Genuine question. Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Dave - that's the trouble with abbreviations! I had to search for the meaning - it's collaboration, not conflict of interest. Ha, ha?? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rocknrollmancer: In fact, I am happy with the amount of informal collaboration I receive, and am not really interested in setting up anything formal. I wonder why that is not "wise". --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rocknrollmancer: Thanks for clarifying. I'm not formally collaborating with Peter, but we share a mutual interest in historic buildings; Peter has written hundreds of "Listed buildings in X" articles and I'm randomly populating them with photos, tweaking coordinate templates and adding links to surrounding parishes as part of my general wikignoming. I don't think it needs a formal declaration. Dave.Dunford (talk) 13:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Dave - you ask about my thoughts on the new format of the NHLE. It LOOKS better - the earlier version looked primitive. But in fact, it's no real improvement. The IoE photo, which used to be lost at the bottom of the page, is now on the first page, and therefore more obvious. But if photos are added by the Enhance the List procedure, these photo(s) are on the third page, and you only realise they are there by spotting a number by the title - very odd. But the revamping does not solve the major problem in the list - its many errors. There are many typos, presumably caused by moving the material from another source by OCR. Every week I send a list to Minor Amendments with typos (some of which are quite amusing), and changes of use of LBs, etc. Even worse are the major errors, such as markers in the wrong position or on the wrong building, demolished items still in the list, and duplications where LBs have more than one LEN. So every week another list goes, this time to a named person who checks my comments, and agrees and makes changes, or not, as appropriate. (A nice bit of collaboration!) Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Peter I. Vardy: I concur with all you've said about NHLE - there are some significant improvements (they appear to have improved the upload process, although it occasionally tells me I'm not logged in when I am, and it appears they've relaxed their 1MB limit on photos, which used to catch me out) but the improvements seem largely cosmetic and I'm not a fan of the way the information is divided between tabs. I too have a folder full of emails to and from "Minor amendments" (though I'm not quite as diligent as you). TBH my contributions to NHLE have dropped markedly; I upload photos occasionally and report errors as the spirit moves me, and at some point I might get a bit more active and systematic, but for now I find Wiki has better tools and is more responsive and rewarding. Dave.Dunford (talk) 13:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

(EC) Apologies it was unclear. What I meant was...the first section of the talk page as it was - before the bot archived it, in this change. Seems that you were advising an editor about CoI when you yourself (Dave.Dunford) have sort-of admitted it (now), but without a declaration. If you are writing about Cheshire in a publication, and have a history of similar contributions on WP and an intent to continue, it should be annotated. This is for protocol, not for me. I actually haven't looked at whether you contribute content (prose), but I've seen your name around Notts, Derbys, etc.

Normally, I wouldn't have looked at your talk page (mostly I can't remember why I have Talk pages of individuals on my watchlist). @Peter I. Vardy: - it wasn't meant for you

, I thought that would be clear when I used the term "...first section...", but I hadn't anticipated the archiving.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 13:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks – I thought that might be what you meant. Yes, although I'm mainly a wikignome working on grammar and references and the like, I do occasionally add content to Cheshire articles, but it's always uncontroversial, cited stuff, and unrelated to my work for Cheshire Life; I've never edited an article that directly concerns the magazine. I don't think there's any conflict of interest to acknowledge, to be frank. The conversation you refer to (now archived) was about this change, which was the addition by a newbie WP:SPA of what seemed to be unambiguously promotional content about a non-notable local streaming service that they were clearly involved in. I don't think there's much comparison. Dave.Dunford (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The first, rather short, list of listed buildings in Derbyshire is out - Listed buildings in Aldercar and Langley Mill. Comments and improvements welcomed. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, they've been cropping up on my watchlist – good work. I can't think of any obvious generic improvements off the top of my head. I'll populate these articles with photos from my archive and when I visit on an ad hoc basis, and at some point I might go through them systematically adding links to listed buildings in adjoining parishes as I've been doing in Cheshire, but that's not core information for the article (I'm also adding "shares border with" fields to parish entries in Wikidata at the same time, and improving Wikidata's LB entries generally, so it's a long-term and not terribly systematic project for me). Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Just completed Listed buildings in Ashford-in-the-Water and illustrated it with your excellent photographs. Are there any more you can add? It looks an attractive village. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Peter – looks great. I think you've included all the photos I have – as it happens, I broke from my systematic, sequential trawl through my archive of photos to dig out and upload everything I had from several visits to Ashford (which is, indeed, a rewarding village), partly because I went there again recently, and partly because I'd anticipated that you'd get to it quite soon. I think the only thing I could possibly add is a poor-quality picture of the rear of Ardrock Cottage; I decided it wasn't informative enough to add to Wikimedia and Wikidata but I'll have another look. Most of the missing ones are ancillary buildings at Thornbridge and Ashford Halls. I see that the gardens at Thornbridge are free entry in January and February – if I find time I might make a special trip. Ashford might be a bit more problematic, as it's a private house (though apparently the Carriage House, which I photographed distantly from the entrance, is an AirBNB). Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Peter I. Vardy: A thought – are you aware of the Wiki Loves Monuments tool? I use it as my favoured method when uploading listed building photos. As well as showing you cartographically which listed buildings and scheduled monuments have a photo attached to their Wikidata items, if you use the "Upload" button to upload new photos, it automatically adds the location, NHLE number and Wikidata link to any upload, which is pretty handy. Wiki Loves Monuments didn't happen in the UK in 2021, and is normally restricted to the month of September, but the tool still works. One of the things I'm doing as I work through your Cheshire LB articles is to try to make sure that all the included photos have {{Listed building England}} and {{On Wikidata}} templates (which a lot of them don't). Dave.Dunford (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Dave, I am aware of Wiki Loves Monuments. But, as you realise, I have not been adding the templates, partly due to ignorance, and partly due to laziness. Must remedy this! Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Joey Beauchamp

On 20 February 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Joey Beauchamp, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move

Hi, Dave. Wonder if you have seen the request for a move at Listed buildings in Ironville and Riddings Ward. Cheers, --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Added my support. A rather naive good-faith suggestion from someone who doesn't know what a listed building is. Dave.Dunford (talk) 08:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

William Hale

Hi just withering why you brought up William Hale in relation to the Coal Aston talk page comment I left ! Completely irrelevant, I have been the victim of a troll and have been fed fake information regarding this individual! Please respond and tell me you are in no way acting in a manner which makes other editors become victims in edit traps ! Mike.Dickard (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

If you can't verify the information from reliable sources, you shouldn't be adding it to Wikipedia. Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

That’s understandable, however is irrelevant as to why most of the Wikipedia for Coal Aston has disappeared ! Mike.Dickard (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I see you’ve said my name is some sought of ‘knob joke’ I can only describe that as disgusting ! I’ve dealed with bullying and attacks of my name since my earliest memories ! Please apologise for such a vile attack, this is my real name and I’m proud to wear it with pride ! Mike.Dickard (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe this is your real name. Dave.Dunford (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Would you like my birth certificate ? You have never met me and as such it is unwise to make such bold assumptions ! Mike.Dickard (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

So you deny being the same person that made these edits, despite their obvious similarities to your own: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], the last under an account that hijacks my real name? I think my "assumptions" are pretty sound. WP:DUCK. Dave.Dunford (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I was merely given some information via email of some information which I clearly see is not true! I have no connection to these accounts except similarities in edits, perhaps these I are responsible for sending me the fake information. Mike.Dickard (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe you, and nor will the sockpuppet investigation. Please stop posting on my Talk page. Dave.Dunford (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Vindicated. Dave.Dunford (talk) 08:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Ukranians and North Moreton

Dear "Dave" I beleive you are a resident or otherwise connected with this village and this is motivating your vandalism of a neutural edit. I will not stand for this and will keep changing it. The latest edit was modified to follow the guidelines you refered to and stated only facts. Despite this you have again and without further justifying your actions removed the edit. Kindly do not do this again and give an account of yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.70.161.206 (talk) 10:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I live in Derbyshire, so you're wrong. You have provided no evidence of your interpretation of the motives of the North Moreton hosts, which is no more than personal opinion. You are in clear breach of WP:NPOV, and your suggestion that your edits are "neutral" are laughable. This is misuse of Wikipedia and I'll be taking it further. Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

"Entirely conventional" capitalization

Re this revert, you're asserting that it's "entirely conventional" to capitalize siege and battle in these contexts. But our style, per MOS:CAPS, is to reserve capitalization for proper names and such, as supported by finding "consistent capitalization" in reliable sources. If you look at stats for Siege of Lichfield, you'll see it's not usually capped in sources. Similarly for Battle of Hopton Heath. And a great many of those capped uses in books are in headings and tables of contents and citations to titles and such, as opposed to usage in sentences which is what we go by, so the preponderance of lowercase usage is even greater than such stats show. Dicklyon (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Dicklyon:: see Battle of Hastings (ngram) - why should other battles be treated differently? And the ngram stats for Battle of Hopton Heath are not "similar" – they show a (slightly) higher incidence of capital B (though I take the point about headings etc.). I dispute the grammatically unsophisticated assertion that capitals should only be used for proper nouns. Dave.Dunford (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

With "siege" I'm open to persuasion. Revert if you insist. Dave.Dunford (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Many of these battles were discussed recently. See WT:MOSCAPS#Concluded and click "show" for a list of individual discussions, which didn't get much if any pushback to following MOS:CAPS for battles. Yes, a lot are still over-capitalized, and some are really "proper nouns" according to long usage and source evidence, but not so many. Dicklyon (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm interested in how you determine that the Battle of Hastings is a proper noun but the Battle of Hopton Heath isn't. What's the difference – mere familiarity? That sounds a pretty dubious criterion. (I'd actually argue that neither of them are really proper nouns, but that, contrary to your apparent understanding, capitals serve purposes that are subtler than merely identifying proper nouns. But it appears such nuance is disappearing from the English language. A shame, but the philistines seem to have won.) Have it your way. Dave.Dunford (talk) 22:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn't determine that, but sources at least lean a lot more heavily toward consistently capitalizing Battle of Hastings. There's no consensus on what the threshold should be for "consistently capitalized", but for real names (like people and cities) sources are generally above 95% capitalizing. Arguments arise around the 70–80% region. Keep in mind that a lot of the caps you see in books for military events are from lists, titles, captions, etc.; the percentages in text, which is what we've prefer to look at, is generally lower. Dicklyon (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

And the use of caps for purposes other than signaling proper nouns is very much alive and well in English, especially in Web English and specialist writing; just not in Wikipedia style. Dicklyon (talk) 22:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I just checked Philistinism. I'm pretty sure that's not what's behind this difference of style preferences. Dicklyon (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Would you consider becoming a New Page Reviewer?

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. (Purge)

Hi Dave.Dunford,

I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join the new page reviewing team. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; the new page reviewing team needs help from experienced users.

Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, most pages are easy to review, and habits are quick to develop). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR. If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message on my talk page or at the reviewer's discussion board.

Cheers, and hope to see you around, (t · c) buidhe 17:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Victoria Coren Mitchell

Hi. R.e. your revert of my edit, I believe my change makes the article consist, by using Coren to refer to the subject about events before her marriage and Coren Mitchell after it. That's how the rest of the article is written, as far as I can tell. Does that seem appropriate? Nicgarner (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Nicgarner: The policy is fine, but it's not been consistently applied. There are other references to before her marriage that refer to her as "Coren Mitchell". It either needs to use "Coren Mitchell" throughout, or "Coren" consistently for events that took place before her marriage, and "Coren Mitchell" thereafter. I'll look at it in a minute. Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I've made it consistent, using the policy you suggest. The sentence you changed, however, refers to events both before and after her marriage in November 2012 ("EPT Sanremo 2014"), so I've left that one as "Coren Mitchell". I've ducked the issue in the last para of "Personal life" (referring to statements made before her marriage) by using "she". Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Title?

Hello, Dave. Please see the comment I have made on File talk:Derwent Farmhouse, Froggatt.jpg. Am I correct? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Peter I. Vardy: Yes, you're right. I'll fix it. Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Contested deletion

Hi, Dave. Any comments on this Contested deletion? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

No worries, the tag has been removed on my behalf. Cheers.

@Peter I. Vardy: Yes, I saw it and was ready to comment in your defence if necessary, but glad to hear it's sorted – I'd assumed it was just a misunderstanding. Dave.Dunford (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave. Not IMO a misunderstanding, but rather a knee jerk reaction made without looking properly at the two lists and comparing them. I have mentioned this to the appropriate editor. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Photograph

Hi, Dave. I wonder if represents the listed building 1109913. The description in the NHLE at [6] describes it as having a central part with a castellated parapet flanked by gabled bays, depicted I think at . I suspect that your photograph is a wing of the Manor House LEN 1109912. Thoughts? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@Peter I. Vardy: Yep, it looks as though you're right. I'll sort the Commons file out. Thanks for spotting. Dave.Dunford (talk) 11:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments toolforge

Hi Dave, I thought I'd reply here as I can't ping you from the Wikimedia UK wiki. The WMUK site was spun out from WMF hosting several years ago so unified log in doesn't work there and neither do cross-wiki notifications (or, I think, Echo).

As to your question about toolforge and Template:Listed building England thank you for mentioning that issue. It's interesting that Template:On Wikidata isn't causing the same kind of issue. I'll ask the developer if he can change the order in which the code is created. I'm no developer, but it doesn't seem like too big a change.

On a related note, it looks like this year we will be using https://monumental.toolforge.org during the competition as the primary upload tool, so there may be new quirks as we haven't used it before, though other countries have been using it for years. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@Richard Nevell (WMUK): Thanks for replying Richard. I tried to log into the WMUK site but it didn't recognise my WP/Commons password and a password reminder hasn't arrived yet.

I'll take a look at https://monumental.toolforge.org. It's not a big deal on the older tool, just an extra step I have to remember to do. My hunch is that it's probably something to do with the Listed building England template and the way it renders, though I noticed that the tool puts Template:On Wikidata within the Template:en that's nested inside the Description parameter of Template:Information template, whereas Template:Listed building England is placed after the closure of the Template:en. However, I don't think (from memory) that putting the LBE template inside Template:en (i.e. immediately following the Template:On Wikidata) works either. Template:On Wikidata works fine within the Description/caption. Dave.Dunford (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Just so you're aware, I'm getting an HTTP 500 error when I try to log in at https://monumental.toolforge.org. Could be related to my other login issue.

That will be an unrelated issue, but I'll raise that with the developers as well. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Part of the issue is I linked to the generic tool, rather than the one for Wiki Loves Monuments, though it would be useful to be able to log into the main part of the tool. The link I should have given is: https://maps.wikilovesmonuments.org/ Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Sport in Oxford

I don't know enough about the topic to be bold and just do it but "someone" (meaning you) might consider that it is time to hive off the sport section into its own article? And even "history of Oxford" too, perhaps? John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, but I'm not the person to write it. Apart from Oxford United, I don't know much about Oxford sport, and I haven't lived in Oxfordshire for over 20 years. Dave.Dunford (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Tudweiliog

Dave - am a bit puzzled by your reversion. I get that the place is a place, rather than a building or a garden, but within its boundaries it has, at least one, listed building and one registered garden. I’m therefore not sure why you think it’s inappropriate to add Categories relating to these? KJP1 (talk) 10:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@KJP1: Because a category about listed buildings should only contain articles about buildings, not articles about settlements. Almost every village contains at least one listed building. If and when someone writes an article about Cefnamwlch, that article belongs in Category:Grade II* listed buildings in Gwynedd and Category:Registered historic parks and gardens in Gwynedd, but Tudweiliog doesn't. By your rationale (to take a rather absurd example), London belongs in Grade II* listed buildings in London (because "within its boundaries it has, at least one, listed building"). Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@KJP1: A thought: one holding fix here is to create a redirect at Cefnamwlch which redirects to the relevant section of the Tudweiliog article, and put that redirect article in the two categories. This was the solution to an analogous case at Castle Naze (which redirects to Combs Moss). Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Dave - Much appreciated. That’s a very helpful suggestion. My difficulty is that I want the links for the Historic parks and gardens lists, but I think it will be a long time before many/most of them have standalone articles. Your solution neatly gets around this. Unfortunately, it also means a fair bit of re-working! All the best. KJP1 (talk) 11:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@KJP1: I've seen to it. Glad we found a solution. Dave.Dunford (talk) 12:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

mcfc supporters club in lymm

why do you keep deleting reference to this important cultural and sporting organisation in lymm? there are over 120 members and it is a social community in Lymm. do you live in in lymm? do you even know anything about Lymm? 2A00:23C6:5692:7D01:ACA7:CD3:F649:5701 (talk) 18:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Lymm. Dave.Dunford (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Infobox collapsing

Hi Dave,

Basically I collapsed the infobox when I made it to follow the trend of Montacute House which was done by Nikkimaria & this user seems to be pretty big on the infobox manual of style page so it seemed good to follow. There have been some recent discussions following some of my infoboxes about their need & so I was trying to integrate people's belief the listings can be clutter with my belief that there are definitely people who look at the listing + that it provides useful information that summarises a building. I guess there is the question of what should be collapsed and what not. I have collapsed Crag Hall so if you frequently use that as a template & want to have them remain uncollapsed you may want to uncollapse it before reuse.

I think we are the main infobox-ers so to speak, if there are any others then I guess direct them here and we can come up with something to then suggest to non-infoboxers?

Hoping your day is going well, EPEAviator (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Forgive my intrusion, but a simple reader of Wikipedia (as distinct from an editor), would in my opinion much prefer to have the basic information about a subject provided directly in an open infobox, rather than have to click a "show" link, when they probably don't know what it means and what might be there. Experienced users will know what "show" means (maybe), but the casual information-seeker will probably ignore it and move on, missing much vital and basic material. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, another TPS. Basically, I think the collapsed infobox (IB) approach is another compromise that will likely please no-one. Debates around the IB are long-standing, and positions are firmly held. In essence, some editors like them for everything, some for some topics but not for others, and some not at all. For me, an editor who uses them, they are still not worth a battle. Overall, an informative, well-written and properly cited article without an IB is of more value than a weaker article with one. And, in pursuit of this, I would defer to the views of the original editor(s). For this reason, I would not have put an IB into Bramshill House, as User:EPEAviator has done. KJP1 (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see the star on Bramshill. I'll self-reveret. EPEAviator (talk) 19:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to work through it tonight as Tibetan Player is retired. It would be nice for uniformity, though, across at least GI buildings, to have the basic information in the same place. (as Peter sort of asks) EPEAviator (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Somewhat separately, is the Historic Houses taskforce pretty dormant? I feel like there should be some forum for the body of people that work on these (I'm aware a lot of users stick to a single county or two) to come up with a whole task plan and some consensuses + image-taking/copyright requesting and work from there.

I'm separately working on publishing a resources index (which currently links to listings & not Wikipedia due to me having worked on some of the articles using sources in the index so don't want to mistakenly corroborate a misread if there is one) but there are the obvious copyright problems currently delaying it & it would be nice to be able to distribute planning docs/Proquest articles more efficiently to then be used and cited (can't just post online w/o permission, some are not online as of now). The BL is pretty much the best resource for all of these and some coordination in getting information from there to then be used seems very wise. EPEAviator (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

This is a bit of a string of thoughts as I juggle eating & writing, but I must admit no infobox is cleaner when done correctly (Belton House style), but on so many articles there aren't the words/images/information to have that be true. EPEAviator (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok I am now back to thinking about consensus & uniformity. Flip-flopping head needs some days to process; would prefer a group to collectively try and create a consensus. EPEAviator (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks all for the replies. I think this needs wider and further discussion on a more visible forum. I've spent quite a lot of time adding infoboxes, or adding details (particularly listing details) to existing infoboxes, on historic building articles, and it's frankly dispiriting to have all my work hidden away. From a look at their talk page I get the impression that user Nikkimaria has a fairly hardline view on infoboxes that may not match the consensus. Contra KJP1 above, I can't see any reason why an infobox shouldn't be added to any article, featured or otherwise. Sometimes I want a quick piece of info about a building (where is it? what grade is listed at? what period is it? who's the architect?) and I can get that information much more quickly from a well-provisioned infobox than by working through the text. What's the objection to infoboxes? If it's cosmetic (which I suspect to be the case) then I think that's a case of "form over function". Dave.Dunford (talk) 11:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Dave - thanks for hosting the discussion. I think the objections to infoboxes are many and varied, but they can probably be summarised something like: "they are unsuitable for some topics, where it is inappropriate/impossible to compress the main features/points of importance into a summary box. In such instances, it is better to put all of the key information in a prose lead." What I'm pretty sure about is that no project-wide consensus would be reached, whatever forum was chosen for a discussion. Battles over infoboxes have been going on since I joined Wikipedia in 2007, and they have seen some very good editors leave the project, as well as the expenditure of acres and acres of, often very bitter, text on debating the pros and cons. Even within the limited scope of this discussion, important listed houses, three respected and experienced editors have indicated they oppose them. It's for this reason that I adopt the "take it as it is" approach - if I'm creating an article, or working up a stub, I'll include one; if I'm working on an already solid article that doesn't have one, I won't impose one. I just don't think the uniformity EPEAviator wants is achievable. KJP1 (talk) 12:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Useful link, thanks – though personally I think the conclusions are wrong-headed, and I see no reason why anyone should pay any regard to comments in an article instructing people not to add an infobox. That's textbook WP:OWN. The maps are extremely useful, and user Johnbod's comment "Especially we don't want a whole screenful of bureacratic information on the heritage listings" is classic WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That said, your pragmatic approach has a lot to commend it. I'll continue adding infoboxes to new building articles and stubs (I'm less interested in the major buildings anyway, as it happens, so in practice I doubt I'll encounter much of this antipathy to infoboxes, of which I wasn't previously aware). Dave.Dunford (talk) 12:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

When it has been tested, the community generally feels they "don't want a whole screenful of bureacratic information on the heritage listings" and similar stuff - I don't know where you've been if you are unaware of discussions on this. Long templates filled up with information of no interest to the reader take up space that should used for images, and are clearly against WP:INFOBOX. Johnbod (talk) 02:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Could you link to an explanation of what these "tests" were, and where the results were reported (genuinely)? I've not been party to any such discussion. I agree that infoboxes have a tendency to get too long, but (a) that's purely cosmetic and (b) I personally find them useful. You have decided that, when applied to heritage designations for buildings, the answer to "Is the field of value?" is "No". That's an entirely subjective opinion on your part. I disagree that they are of "no interest to the reader". The scheduling/listing status of a building might not interest you, but it does me. Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

And, since we're wikilawyering, WP:INFOBOX says "Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, thank you Dave for holding this discussion here. First, sorry for collapsing them, I’m sure you can see what the effort was, but (more importantly) I can also see how it is not the way forward and dispiriting for the creator of the infobox; I’ve been there at times over the last few days. Second, I agree with a lot of the points you make.

However, I am sort of won around that uniformity is unachievable, at least for a while. I’m going to take what I’ve learnt from this and do quite similarly (the higher the articles class, the more wary for an infobox addition) but always try and invite people to revert my edits if they so wish & have reasonable explanation.

A group for discussion was suggested on another one of my replies (I was eating & so replies a little hodgepodge).

That’s all from me; back to you in the studio, EPEAviator (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Stop enabling block evasion

You are supporting block evasion when you reverted my edits. Next time you want to revert a lot of my edits at least have the decency to talk to me first. DuncanHill (talk) 13:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

In no way am I "supporting block evasion". The identity and behaviour of previous editors wasn't remotely my concern – I was merely undoing edits that I considered detrimental to the articles in question, based purely on their own merits. Several other people have also been reverting your similar revertions, it appears. I'm not aware of any rule or guidelines that says that constructive edits by editors should be reverted based on their behaviour elsewhere. Dave.Dunford (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

You need to take ownership of your actions. In future label them as "reinstating edits by blocked editor". "Other people are doing it" didn't work as an excuse in primary school and it doesn't here. DuncanHill (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I made my edits to improve the articles in question, and nothing more. My edit summaries addressed my editorial reasons, as is conventional, rather than some irrelevant reference to the actions of previous editors. I will word my edit summaries as I see fit, thank you very much. Please assume good faith in future. Dave.Dunford (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

It would be easier to assume good faith if you had tried to talk to me before reverting my edits en masse. DuncanHill (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I didn't "revert your edits en masse", I reverted a series of edits to articles on my watchlist that I didn't consider to be improvements. I don't think I need lessons in Wiki etiquette from an editor whose opening gambit was to accuse me of "enabling block evasion." See ya. Dave.Dunford (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Dave.Dunford. Thank you for your work on John Doyle (English footballer). BeanieFan11, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Please note that sport biographies are to include at least one piece of significant coverage (i.e. in-depth coverage, excluding databases). Currently, this does not include any.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|BeanieFan11}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)