User talk:Mark999/2007

Archives
Discussions 2006 Discussions 2007 Discussions 2008 Discussions 2009 Discussions 2010 Discussions 2011 Discussions 2012 Discussions 2013 Discussions 2014 Discussions 2015 Discussions 2016 Discussions 2017 Discussions 2018 Discussions 2019

— Gasheadsteve 06:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Rail services in Bristol, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Bencherlite 20:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help adding the {{Bristol}} template to the talk pages of Bristol-related articles. Just one minor point though, I noticed that some of the talk pages you created were for articles that don't exist yet. You should only create talk pages for articles that have already been created. Thanks again for all your help with this task. Gasheadsteve 21:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would not unnecessarily agree with this last point. What Mark999 has done, has also been done elsewhere for other UK transport-related articles such as railway stations and railway lines, where they have been added to a preexisting template.Pyrotec 23:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An idea for something you can do: have a look at Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Bristol and then go to Flickr advanced search and look for suitable pictures that can be included in these articles. Make sure that you tick the only search Creative Commons photos box so that it only finds photos that we can use. You'll still need to double check the licence though because we can't use some Creative Commons licenses. The ones that we can use are Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike. Gasheadsteve 21:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the picture of Redcliffe Wharf isn't any good to us because it's a non-commercial licence, which we're not allowed to use. The licence information on the picture is at the bottom of the right-hand column on the photo page, just under where it says Additional Information, where it says Some rights reserved. Gasheadsteve 21:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've been tagging lots of pages with the Bristol box but can I suggest we are a limited number of editors with limited time & not to tag too many - for example the M48 motorway is quite a long way from Bristol. You might like to revisit some of the articles you started with a single line of text & expand - perhaps by looking at their ward profiles at Ward finder, images at geograph or listed buildings at Images of England.— Rod ^talk 14:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised you marked the article as "start" class. I would have thought it was B and heading for GA. Start is "weak in many areas, and may lack a key element". Could you please specify on the article talk page the many areas where you consider it to be weak. Thanks. Tyrenius 01:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I thought you might be interested to know I've moved the picture of the suspension bridge back to the top of the Bristol article. I've explained why I put it there on Talk:Bristol#Photo_at_top_of_page. If you want to move it again, would you mind leaving a note there so we can reach a consensus? Cheers MrBeast 21:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark, I just tagged this for speedy deletion as the article is currently contentless and I'm assuming it's creation was an accident. Sorry if this is not the case - Peripitus (Talk) 12:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark, could you use the preview button a bit more to cut down on pages in the history, and use the edit summary box? Also, you may be interested in the manual of style. Joe D (t) 19:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed your last edit - "Today the former avon [sic] area is more widely known as Greater Bristol." - mainly because, in my experience working in government in the area, it's an oversimplification to put it mildly. Local people (and councillors etc) in Bath and Weston-super-Mare (and even Thornbury, Portishead and Kingswood) are very touchy about not being seen as part of Bristol, even "Greater Bristol". Essentially that is why more and more of the local and central government documents you see, when they don't refer to Avon or "former Avon", refer to this thing called "West of England" - a stupid name for the area in my view but the least bad that anyone's come up with (apart from "CUBA" which was a joke started in the Avon county planning department by a graphic designer called Chris Bahn, by the way - not me but I was in the room at the time !). I accept that in terms of functional geography, and to people outside the area, "Greater Bristol" makes a lot of sense (esp if you're a Bristolian), but it's not seen as a neutral "non-POV" phrase. Ghmyrtle 11:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Cherry Gardens, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Mr Stephen 15:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Elmlea Infant School, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Mr Stephen 15:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated Elmlea Infant School, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Elmlea Infant School satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elmlea Infant School and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Elmlea Infant School during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Mr Stephen 13:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated Cherry Gardens, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Cherry Gardens satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherry Gardens and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Cherry Gardens during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. (signed belatedly: Mr Stephen)

wouldn't this fall into Greater Bristol? I suppose ther is a bit of overlap. Simply south 00:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• See my earlier comments re Avon / Greater Bristol - many residents of S Glos do not accept (rightly or wrongly) that they live in an area which could be described as "Greater Bristol". This is a locally sensitive issue. Ghmyrtle 09:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well, it is good to see articles being referenced. However, in order to see what the references are, please add ==References== just above the external links section. Then add <references/> below. Here is an example^[1]

(You may use edit to see the changes)

See also WP:REF

Simply south 14:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark, in response to your question...I'm currently working on infoboxes for all the Bristol articles which still need them - you might want to lok at those needing stats or pictures? or just take an article & raise it from stub to start or start to B etc.— Rod ^talk 14:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - all of these 210 articles are currently assessed as needing photos. these 138 are assessed as needing maps and there are 410 assessed as needing statistics - although some of these may be assessed worngly. OR you could just take one of the 362 stubs or 179 start class or 41 B class research it and improve it (including the references to your sources). If you need help with referencing or formatting etc just let me know.Any help appreciated. — Rod ^talk 20:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I reverted your addition to WP:RfA, as the page which you attempted to transclude onto the page does not exist. If you wish to nominate yourself for adminship, you should probably look at WP:GRFA. Thank you. --Deskana (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry to have to mass revert all your hard work. I'm afraid that current consensus on how to handle rail line / s-rail templates in the UK is to only show new future services that are "concrete" at TOC changeover. where services will stay the same, the procedure is normally to convert he boxes when the changeover happens (ie company name wl and colour). i would ask about colours somewhere before be too bold and going ahead as we in the UK need to sort them out (virgin and SWT are both red, FCC has two or three, etc).

Pickle 04:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you were busy last night working on Bristol articles! :) Just to let you know, I moved the list of tourist attractions back to List of places in Bristol from Districts of Bristol because they're not really districts of the city. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 07:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you have reverted some edits recently among railway station articles, e.g. Taunton railway station, as you do not think that the new "services" box is as good as the old one. These changes were discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways as they impact right across that project.

The consensus was to tentatively try this next style as it reduces the amount of white space on the pages. If you feel strongly about retaining the old style then perhaps you could join in the discussion? As a busy editor of local transport articles your opinions will be welcome on the project pages. Geof Sheppard 12:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I undid your cut-and-paste page move of Hartcliffe to Hartcliffe, Bristol because this isn't allowed. As it happens, Hartcliffe does not need to be moved at all (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)#United Kingdom). In future, if you need to move an article to a name that already exists you should use {{db-move}} on the destination page so that it can be deleted to make room for the move. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 13:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have recently added merger tags to Virgin Trains and Virgin West Coast. Could you now please go to the Virgin Trains talk page to explain why you think they should be merged, so editors can then discuss the merger and reach a consensus on what to do. Thank you, --Jorvik 16:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark, Thanks for your message. I'm concentrating on Wikipedia:WikiProject Somerset at present rather than Bristol. If you fancied looking at & improving the articles in Category:Transport in Somerset (& sub cats) that would be great. Also some of the roads etc still need to be assessed (along with the others) at Category:Unassessed Somerset articles. Any help appreciated.— Rod ^talk 18:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could also make us a userbox for the Somerset wikiproject :-)— Rod ^talk 18:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know discussion has taken place, which has resulted in a new design for the British TOCs template, for possible implementation on November 11th. Your comments, opinions and suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks, --Jorvik 11:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem Welshleprechaun 01:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What would your job be? Welshleprechaun 01:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeh, I'm just doing the Cardiff Central to Nottingham Line updates. Haven't got enough knowledge of the new routes to edits the actual content of the railway station pages. Welshleprechaun 01:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well good luck, I'm calling it a night now! Welshleprechaun 01:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 01:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Bower Ashton Campus requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Tiptoety 03:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it would really be helpful if you were to fill in the edit summary box each time you make an edit, as it enables other editors to judge whether they need to look at an edit or not. It is considered bad form not to do this! Also, some of your changes (e.g. re-ordering a railway station's list of services) should be classed as "minor edits" (by clicking the box above the "save page" button). Have a look at my contributions to see the sort of thing I'm talking about. Thanks, --RFBailey 14:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my note at Template talk:Infobox UK station#Transport for London. --Stewart ^(talk) 15:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please have a look at the discussion at WT:RAIL about these. In particular, there's a general agreement that these should be used to show the next station along the line in each direction, rather than every calling pattern. This is so that these boxes don't grow too large and are kept under control. Thus, for example, at Liverpool Lime Street it's not necessary to list both Mossley Hill and Liverpool South Parkway as "next" stations for London Midland: Mossley Hill is the next station, so only that one is required. Similarly, at Birmingham New Street it's sufficient just to say that Water Orton is the next station on the line to Leicester, even if most trains go straight to Coleshill Parkway. Thanks, --RFBailey (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, having two "next" stations instead of one may not "make the box any bigger", but it still adds unnecessary clutter. But having separate row of the template for "London-Birmingham and "London-Wolverhampton" is completely unnecessary, and definitely does increase the size of the boxes.

Also, please sign your posts on talk pages properly, using four tildes (~~~~), or by pressing the "signature" button, so that we can tell who left a message, as well as when! --RFBailey (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]