Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lincolnshire/Archive 1

Archive 1

Starting up

Project active, started adding WP Lincolnshire banner to relevant articles. - BulldozerD11 (talk) 20:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Missing geographical coordinates

Many Lincolnshire articles are missing geographical coordinates. Finding the latitude and longitude of locations, and entering coordinates into articles is straightforwards, and explained at Wikipedia:Geocoding how-to for WikiProject members. Having coordinates on articles mean that they turn up in GoogleMaps, MultiMap and other such places which link to wikipedia based on geo-coordinates.

It is now possible to get lists of Lincolnshire articles that have no geographical coordinates via Wikipedia:CatScan, for example:

• Lincolnshire articles missing geo-coordinates.

Alternatively, if CatScan is down or very slow, you can find them by looking through Category:United Kingdom articles missing geocoordinate data.

The articles in the lists above are currently marked with {{coord missing}} templates, which need replacing with filled in {{coord}} templates containing their latitude/longitude data (or else have lat&long entered into the infobox).

There are about 312 articles missing coords - I hope you'll consider adding coordinates so as to make Lincolnshire articles more visible on the web. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Just so you have an up-to-date score: 37 articles in the newly created Category:Lincolnshire articles missing geocoordinate data --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

And there are 48 of them 4 years later! I wonder what the score was in 2008? --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Articles prodded

Just noticed the following articles have been prodded if anyone is interested in them. Jubilee Park (Woodhall Spa), Kirkstead Bridge and The Sewer Keith D (talk) 11:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Keith, 1st 2 Ive added the differences to Woodall Spa article they can go as 3 line stubs, The sewer could probably merge with river witham but I'm not familiar with it and it was part of a series of river articles by the looks. But generally 3 line stubs are better in the article that is going to link to them anyway and just have a redirect till they grow to a edit box / 1/2 page size & have an Ibox and refs etc. - BulldozerD11 (talk) 01:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

List of windmills in Lincolnshire

List created today, Needs more photographs, particularly surviving mills or those with some remains left. Mjroots (talk) 14:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

South Forty-Foot Drain nomination for GA status

I am thinking of nominating this article for GA status. Any comments or suggestions gratefully received. Bob1960evens (talk) 11:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I have just added a couple of dab links, may be worth checking other links to make sure they go to articles rather than dab pages. The edit links are bunching - have a look at WP:BUNCH and see if there is a suitable way to sort out the problem. The lead may also need a bit of beefing up for a GA have a look at WP:LEAD. Apart from that looks in good shape for a nomination. Keith D (talk) 13:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Article alerts

Article alerts are now available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lincolnshire/Article alerts. ArticleAlertbot takes care of the updates which are done on a daily basis. Currently there are no alerts for the project but as more articles that are tagged then it will enable people to keep an eye on deletions, prods, GA, FA, PR and DYK actions on the projects articles. Keith D (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

For more information see this signpost article. Keith D (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, but it usually is better to give a link to the alerts from the project's mainpage, or to use a parameters other than display=none. See WP:AAlerts#Subscribing for details.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks I had forgotten to add link following bot run. Keith D (talk) 13:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Keisby

Could someone take a quick look? I'm out of my element, but this article was created by an account whose every other edit was vandalism, and whom I've now blocked indef. I don't know if this is a hoax or not; I suspect it is, but I assume you folks would know better. I suppose I could AFD it, but I'd rather just ask you. --barneca (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, to be clear, I don't doubt it exists, I just question all of the unsourced information, and suspect at least some of it is a hoax. --barneca (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The map location is in Ropsley so may be it is a part of that area but as far as I can see from my gazetteer Keisby or Keasby is near Lenton and should be at TF0328. I added the district from the infobox to lead sentence but now looks suspect. May be the article as it stands is a mix-up of locations as well as some hoax information. Keith D (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

On further investigation, I appear to have stumbled onto a Grantham/Ropsley-focused vandalism ring. This was created by one blocked vandal, and the infobox was added by one of his sockpuppets. Based on their combined history, your finding some of their errors, the fact that it's completely unsourced, and your gut feeling confirming my gut feeling that it's hoaxy, I'm just going to delete it, rather than waste peoples' time at AFD. If it's notable, eventually someone who knows something about it can recreate it from scratch, rather than tracking down what's true and what's a lie, and if anyone disagrees with my bending of the rules, I'll happily restore it an nominate for AFD instead. --barneca (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it can always be recreated for the right place when someone gets round to it. AFD would have been a waste of time for this. Keith D (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: St. George's College of Technology

You have placed a banner on the discussion for the above article, requesting for it to be part of the WikiProject Lincolnsire. I personally believe that this will help the article and hopefully help to improve both it's content and status so, as a user who has edited the article on several occasions, I think that, for the benefit of the article, it should be a part of the said WikiProject. I therefor open this discussion. 95jb14 (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

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

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Anniversaries

As there are a couple of significant anniversaries this year for Lincolnshire related articles it may be a good opportunity for bringing them up to at least GA status. St Botolph's Church, Boston is celebrating its 700 anniversary and the 200th birthday of Alfred, Lord Tennyson is been remembered. Any takers? Keith D (talk) 13:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll take you up on it and see what I can do with Alfred, Lord Tennyson at least. He for one should be to GA status with being a Lincolnshire personality and one of our great names in literature. --BSTemple (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

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

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

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

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:21, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar award

I have decided to design a barnstar for the wikiproject, If anyone has a comment, it would be much appreciated.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 95jb14 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• A good idea and I for one would welcome anything that helps to mould the WikiProject Lincolnshire Members together and give recognition to exceptional members. A worthy recipient would be Keith D for his work, especially against vandalism of WikiProject Lincolnshire articles. --BSTemple (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Project page layout

Now the project has a few active participants, I'd like to start a discussion on an update of the project page. I left it as it was when I restarted the inactive project last year (2008) but I'm not sure the huge info box on the RHS is totally appropriate but was originally reluctant to remove it, as some sort of replacement is needed to convey some of the info contained in it, but was unsure how to cut it down to size. So any suggestions for a MK II project page format are welcome.

• Has any body seen another project page layout they feel is better ?
• Any extra important info you feel is missing from the page ?. - Suggestions please - BulldozerD11 (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

May be we could create a sidebar of links rather than have the Lincolnshire infobox there, similar to the Greater Manchester or Yorkshire ones. Keith D (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I’ll try to give some comments and help where I can. Areas to look at are the History points and Geographic points … villages, towns, cities etc, then important landmarks, places of attraction etc. People, personalities that are Lincolnshire connected and more importantly born in the county also very important. I've started the Wikipedia:WikiProject Lincolnshire/Lincolnshire People, but a lot more work is needed.

A useful section I use often is the “Monitoring articles”, especially the recent changes list, which I do patrol. Ease of navigation for project editors is the key. --BSTemple (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree but I think that the WikiProject is just not as large as the Yorkshire and Greater Manchester WikiProjects. It has less than 10 members and It takes alot of work and time to create a sidebar. 95jb14 (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I think their is some merit in Keith's suggestion as its neater and aids navigation to some project related items. What I dident want to do was just remove the existing I box, as the page needs a bit of a tidy up all round as items have been added ad hock, and to just rewrite without consultation would not be collaborating. Does any body think anything should go from the current page as not relevant or should it all be incorporated in anew one ? We can build a draft new page behind the current on using a copy of another projects page as an outline ? Its not an instant this minute thing just a new look for spring - BulldozerD11 (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to change the layout then I would create a new version in a sandbox somewhere and then let us know when you are ready for others to view. It does need a revamp but I would probably go for one of the simpler designs rather than the complicated ones with tabs and multiple sub-pages at the moment. As has already been said there is only limited manpower to maintain the project information. Keith D (talk) 13:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Local chapter for the Wikimedia Foundation

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

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

Alliance

I have just thought of an idea that could help to improve this WikiProject, it may seem at first to be slightly odd but just bear with me. I have looked at the counties in the East Midlands and Compared them to the amount of those counties with WikiProjects, they are Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. We all share a common purpose, that is to work on the articles of our county's which includes local history, geography and biographies.

Therefore to help us share methods of research and many other needs (basically 'constructive collaboration' as I call it) I am proposing that we form an alliance, NOT a Merger. I believe an alliance allows us to be independent just as before but in collaboration as well. This could really benefit our WikiProject and I feel we might be the first in Wikipedia's history. I haven't spoken to the other WPs mentioned yet, because I want to make ure that it is fully discussed here. 95jb14 (talk) 16:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That is a very good idea and I’m for it. An alliance would only make us stronger in so much as pooling together our respective talents. Let’s face it, we can’t do articles everywhere in the Wikipedia, but if we concentrate on key areas, 'constructive collaboration', we can strengthen these articles.--BSTemple (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a Good Idea^TM and I'd like to see it work. Pooling resources and experience should benefit everyone. Something to that effect is being discussed over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England#Stop the 'break-up' of England! (the title is misleading, the consensus is against merging existing county projects into large regional projects such as WP:South West England and supports better communication between projects and the sharing of experience and resources). Editors from projects such as Greater Manchester, London, and Yorkshire have mentioned interest in helping some of the less experienced projects with developing articles. I think those three projects alone have about 85 FA/FLs and 120 GAs between them, so there's a wealth of untapped experience.

I left a note on WT:NOTTS asking if they'd be interested in an experiment where they select an article or two to improve and one or more experienced editors from other projects helps them with stuff like MOS, what is a good source of information, any existing guidelines, and examples of what has been successful before. So far there's been no response though.

Feel free to voice your opinion on the subject over at the England wikiproject, even if you think it's a rubbish idea we want to know. Nev1 (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I underatand what you mean and I have raised the proposal on WP England's page now but we donot want help like this from other WPs, we would like to form an alliance between WPs which would be different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95jb14 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, so far the response has been lukewarm. We can't offer knowledge specialised to Lincolnshire, but we do have experience with sourcing, formatting, Good and Featured Articles, and a range of topics but especially settlements so if anyone is ever looking for some outside opinions feel free to drop by WT:UKGEO or the WikiProject England talk page.

Just to clarify, the county projects do a good job, and only one voice had suggested merging them. This will not happen as consensus is so heavily against it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I hope the alliance works, there's an informal thing going on between WP:GM, WP:CHES, and WP:MERSEY but it's not very active, and this kind of formal alliance could be a good way forwards. Nev1 (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, we will always know that there is assistance from you lot if a problem arises and good luck with the WPs you're working with, you have been a help.

95jb14 (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Diocese of Lincoln Article

I have been trying to give all of the unassessed articles a rating and when I came to this one I was very disappointed. As a High importance article it is only just fit for a Start. Is there nothing that we can do to alert another group etc.?

95jb14 (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You could try the other project who has the page tagged Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages. I would also think that it should come under Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglicanism so may be a note over there may get some responce. Keith D (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Advice, Kieth D. 95jb14 (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Assessments

I have just rated all of the 76 ???/??? articles that we had in the unassessed section.It has taken me a few days but I am quite pleased with what I have done, It suprised the high importance of some of the articles but oh well, it's done. Thought I should let you all know. 95jb14 (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

Curious about the list of 4 GA rated pages listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Lincolnshire/Assessment - if you click on the GA link in the table you get a list of four talk pages, and the one I looked at consisted of nothing but banners. Is that an artifact of Wikipedia, or something else? Brunnian (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I think it's because the link you clicked on was to the article talk page rather than the article itself. Talk pages are used to discuss improvements and changes to the article and the inclusion of banners allows WikiProjects to keep track of the number of articles within its scope. If you want to see the article, just click on the tab with "article" written on it at the top-left hand corner of your screen (just to the right of the Wikipedia log). Nev1 (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Importance Assessments

I don't man to complain but, I am an active assessor for this WP (I don't know whether that is a word) and I keep finding articles that have no importance rating. I am not sure why this is but could we please try to give them importance ratings. 95jb14 (talk) 11:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I hold my hand up here as I am tagging articles at the moment but unsure of the importance rating criteria that has been applied by the project. I could assess the same as the ones I have for the Yorkshire project but they may not fit the bill. Keith D (talk) 12:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that, If there are any serious queries then leave it or contact me bbut I tend to find if you haven't heard of the article and it isn't very large then give it a Low. 95jb14 (talk) 12:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC).

I just commented on this at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Lincolnshire/Assessment#Assessment_Requests - according to the scale villages should be 'mid' but lots of them are getting tagged 'low'. The scale at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/Assessment is different: it differentiates by size of settlement. I don't think it fits Lincolnshire, so that's probably where the Lincolnshire scale came from.--Brunnian (talk) 09:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The Lincolnshire scale is the basic one that is used by most projects as a starting point, UK Geo have modified it for their purposes. See my comments at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Lincolnshire/Assessment#Assessment_Requests where I note what we have done on the Yorkshire project but we have not followed what is now on our assessment page. We attempted to modify it but did not really achieve something usable. Normally a few experienced users in the projects do the assessing and grade things relative to each other rather than follow what is written down. Keith D (talk) 12:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Page design

I have completed a design for our home page, it is only a prototype so all coments are welcome. Feel free to take a look. If it is liked then maybe we can apply it to the page and eventually the entire WikiProject. It can be found on my Page six: WP Lincolnshire sandbox. 95jb14 (talk) 12:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I prefer a white page as we have now. It's easier on the eyes. --BSTemple (talk) 12:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of redesigning the project page to make it stand out, and I like the suggestion although as BSTemple points out it may not be accessible to everyone. At the moment, most county projects have fairly bland and uninteresting pages and may put people off (only may though, as I have no evidence to back this up it's only a theory; plus it would apply to people familiar with WikiProjects rather than the average Wikipedia reader as most are unaware that they exist). Using the colours used in the county flag is a nice idea to make it feel more customised, but there is then the snag of readability. Yellow/gold on red isn't the easiest to read, and some Wikipedia users are red-green colour blind (although as the green is used only as decoration I don't think this is an issue).

What may work is putting all the text into boxes with a pale background against which the text would stand out against; perhaps a very pale red background and dark blue text? Nev1 (talk) 12:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I would probably agree with Nev1 that something needs to be done to make the project page stand out among the crowd. The colours in the sandbox version do not work for me, the blue on the dark red background are almost unreadable. May be try Nev1 suggestion of a pale red, I know the dark red is on the Lincolnshire flag but we have to aim for usability. Keith D (talk) 15:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Pastel light colours would be better, but pale red is then close to pink. May I suggest pale blue, green or yellow with bold red borders, or similar? The problem we have, is when you look at bold backgrounds (i.e. white or gold on black) then move onto the other wikipages, your eyes have a hard time adjusting, or at least mine do.--BSTemple (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I have taken on board what has been said and I feel I have changed it enough and am done working on it. To me everything looks fine: all the links, writing and images etc. are visible. The page still incorporates the colours and there is no problem with colour blindness (and I do know alot about colourblindness - my brother cannot differentiate blue/purple, red/green, silver/metallic green and green/brown.) I would like feedback still, feel free to take alook here. Maybe some form of vote if all goes to plan. 95jb14 (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC).

Much better and readable now. A minor point - it may be worth bolding the FA & GA articles so they stand out a bit from the introductory text, otherwise thumbs up. Keith D (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it's better and easier on the eyes.--BSTemple (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Popular pages

A tool is available for gathering statistics for the number of hits for the projects pages. An example output for the Yorkshire project is here. There is not yet a full months statistics available for the project but it is interesting to see usage of the information. Do members think that this would be useful information to have collected, may help in focusing on the most visited pages? 09:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The static page produced each month can be seen for the Yorkshire project here. Is there any interest? Keith D (talk) 21:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree, it would show us which pages are being looked at the most, thus giving us an idea of priority. All pages in the project need to be worked on and maintained, as well as new pages created, but a guide to help members focus is a good thing.--BSTemple (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I was surprised by the top article on the Yorkshire list which is Arctic Monkeys followed by Wuthering Heights, certainly not ones I would have even considered. Keith D (talk) 23:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

So was I, that's why I said as a guide in case the Lincolnshire statistics produce odd results which show articles no one fancies working on. We mustn't also neglect our smaller or less popular articles that are also important to the project, because after all the Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that is about knowledge and information, and not just popularity or celebrities. The article today with the least hits could be the most tomorrow if an event happens that puts it into the spotlight.--BSTemple (talk) 08:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I have put request to start recording data in the queue (request 8jmah73). It will probably be November or December before we get the first page of monthly results. Keith D (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing it, as it will be interesting to see the results, especially after seeing the Yorkshire Monkeys. Maybe we’ll have Gorillas? --BSTemple (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a good idea, quite interesting. I hadn't even noticed this section was here until just now. I took a look around the website and I must say even some GA's (like Leeds Architecture) end up below Start class articles! If only people edited like they viewed!! 95jb14 (talk) 17:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC).

Stats have just started being gathered - in pole position at the moment is Isaac Newton followed by Margaret Thatcher. Keith D (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Well that's certainly better than Arctic Monkeys! --BSTemple (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was just about to add a message about this. It's looking good! 2:-)

Tagging articles

Hi, I think that I have now tagged all of the Lincolnshire related articles apart from biographical type articles. I just wanted to know the view of members on biographical articles with regard to tagging for the project. At the moment I have tagged very few of these articles and the time has come to define the scope of what we cover. We could go down several routes here - from only tagging those who were born in Lincolnshire to the other extreme of tagging everyone who have had a connection to Lincolnshire, including all of those who have lived in the area or played for one of the many sports teams that we have in the area. On the other hand we could only tag those that are prominent Lincolnshire people (we would have to define this). Has anyone got any views on which approach to take?

Tagging everyone connected to Lincolnshire can get out of hand and where do you stop? I feel those that are born in Lincolnshire is the best route (it's also the easiest). Special mention could also go to those that have promoted Lincolnshire or connected to the county in some way. For example someone famous moves to Lincolnshire to live and goes on to write about the county and its beauty etc.--BSTemple (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Kings Mill, Stamford

There is a deletion discussion on Kings Mill, Stamford here if anyone is interested. Keith D (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Project watchlist

Hi, just to let you know that the project watchlist is out of date as I am unable to generate a new one since the changes to software last week. The script is giving errors trying to get the list of tagged articles. Hopefully I can get it resolved quickly but will have to wait on expertise of others. I will let you know when we are back up to date. Keith D (talk) 11:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Watchlist is back-up to date following changes to configuration. I managed to work out what to do from the scraps on WP:VPT. Keith D (talk) 11:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Layout Again

Is it worth me cahnging the layout to my design we discussed earlier in the year or not? Because I would like to do something with it now. 95jb14 (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC).

I would go for it. If you are interested I created a side-bar along similar lines to the Manchester & Yorkshire ones it is in my sandbox. Keith D (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a good design, we should it on the page. 95jb14 (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC).

May be you could implement your changes to the project page and use the side bar in place of the Lincolnshire infobox, though it may need a boarder adding so you can see it easier. Keith D (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to mess up the rest of the page, though, it mignt need looking into, if you want you can experiment on User:95jb14/sandbox 5. 95jb14 (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC).

I have tweaked it and floated right so does not appear to mess-up the formatting now. If you do not like it on the project page then revert out. I have moved the sidebar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Lincolnshire/Sidebar for anyone to pick-up and use. Keith D (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, looks great. 95jb14 (talk) 10:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC).

DYK

Should we have a Did You Know section on the project page so we can list facts from articles used on the main page? Keith D (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

If they have a significance to Lincolnshire, then why not?--BSTemple (talk) 22:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of articles tagged for the project having a DYK entry. Keith D (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that most of the others now do, I think it's worth doing. When I created WikiProject Latin, I included DYKs. 95jb14 (talk) 11:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC).

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Lincolnshire to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lincolnshire/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 00:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move of Lincoln

Just to let the appropriate WikiProject know there is currently a requested move discussion at Talk:Lincoln#Requested move to move Lincoln to Lincoln (disambiguation), comments from all are welcome. Jeni ^(talk) 17:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate WikiProject. The appropriate WikiProject is WikiProject Disambiguation Purplebackpack89 (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll find kind sir, that given that Lincoln is within the scope of this WikiProject, it is perfectly appropriate. Jeni ^(talk) 22:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

To mediate, whilst the Disambiguation WikiProject is the appropriate WP, we are equally as appropriate because Lincoln is one of our most important articles. 95jb14 (talk) 12:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC).

You got your Lincolns mixed up. Currently Lincoln is a disambiguation page that links to a bunch of pages, including Lincoln, Lincolnshire but also lots of articles that have nothing to do with Lincolnshire Purplebackpackonthetrail (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to AGF there, 95jb14 acknowledges that the disambig project is there, and so is probably aware that the Lincoln page is a disambig page. Jeni ^(talk) 21:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, WP:Lincolnshire covers the article Lincoln (Lincolnshire) in it's scope but as it has already been stated the article in question is a disambiguation page. The page contains Lincoln (Lincolnshire) so it is worthwhile us being notified to monitor the progress. The disambig page is also tagged as a WP:Lincolnshire Disambig article of High Importance, thus making it an important article in relation to our WP. Equally it is tagged by WP:Biography (in respect to Abraham Lincoln) and WP:Disambiguation so all three parties should be informed as well as any significant contributors, like in any such move or deletion case. 95jb14 (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC).

The discussion on the Lincoln talk page regarding the WikiProject tag has now closed, it was going around in circles with one editor crying wolf and everyone else getting annoyed. The move discussion remains open. Jeni ^(talk) 20:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

Your project uses User:WolterBot, which occasionally gives your project maintenance-related listings.

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project.

Here is an example of a project which uses User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cricket_articles/Unreferenced_BLPs

There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced living people articles related to your project will be found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Lincolnshire/Unreferenced BLPs.

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you. Okip 08:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes I have to agree, articles must have some sort of reference, though with a heavy heart I know this would affect some of our articles that are lacking references (I’m thinking of our villages etc) and I try to include references in articles when I can, like I did in the Navenby article. I generally do this for all information that I include into an article. In regard to people, yes there has to be at least a reference of some sort, and in this my reasons are naturally getting facts correct, but also to combat vandalism where facts etc are deliberately altered and we really need a reference to confirm them. A list of the biographies needing references would be a good thing.--BSTemple (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I am glad that you like the idea. The red link should be blue in the next couple of hours. Please let me know if you have any questions at all :) and keep up the wonderful work! Okip 05:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

DASHBot only examines already articles already tagged with your wikiproject template, it does NOT tag new articles. If your project is ever interested in tagging more articles with a bot, please see: Category talk:WikiProject tagging bots Okip 05:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The bot searched the wrong category in its first run, I fixed this, so in a couple of hours it should search Category:WikiProject_Lincolnshire_articles and provide a list. Okip 06:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Good to see that we have no unreferenced BLP articles! My guess is because we have only tagged a few high profile people who you would expect have some references on their articles. We need to select which categories to tag for the project, I did bring it up above, last year, but only got a responce by BSTemple to narrow it to people born in Lincolnshire or prominent in history of Lincolnshire. When we have a list of categories that we think are relevant then we can tag them. Keith D (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I’ve just checked it and put a link on my user page. I’m in favour of narrowing it to people born in Lincolnshire or prominent in the history of Lincolnshire. Thank you Okip for providing a useful tool, which has at least shown we have no unreferenced BLP articles.--BSTemple (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I have added a link on to the project sidebar for those using that to have a quick link to the page. Keith D (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

glad you folks are participating!

There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.

If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 22:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Portal

I have just started the framework for a Lincolnshire Portal and would like some input from members as to which articles and images to feature. If you know of any good images or panoramas of the county then let me know so I can create that section. At the moment everything is red-linked and just needs some work on it. Keith D (talk) 11:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Nocton Dairies

Hello. There's some discussion going on about Nocton Dairies that you might be interested in. Chris (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Lincolnshire articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

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

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

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

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ormulum's FAR

I have nominated Ormulum for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Barnetby

If anyone knows Barnetby railway station can they answer image query on Talk:Barnetby railway station. Keith D (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Linking

Their is a link on our page to discuss linking with you. I am the author online for the Lincolnshire Bombers Roller Girls, Based in Lincoln. let me know what you need to add to your site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diss-Continued (talk • contribs) 22:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you mean. The article is tagged as part of this project as it is Lincolnshire related. Keith D (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

River Glen, Lincolnshire article

I am working on improving the River Glen article, but there is a section on naming, which I have tagged with an Unreferenced tag, and two paragraphs at the start of the History section, which again are unreferenced. Both cover subject matter over which I have no idea where to look to find refs, so wondered if anyone else had ideas where I might find some. Thanks to anyone who might. Bob1960evens (talk) 12:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Article for South Somercotes?

I note a couple redlinks to South Somercotes in Lincolnshire. I don't know much about the area, but is this a place significant enough to merit an article? I ask too since John Hunsley, last known player of the Lincolnshire bagpipes lived there, so wanted to add that to the town article if one is created. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

As it is a civil parish then I would expect an article to be created on it at some point, as generally all civil parishes are notable. Keith D (talk) 12:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done I've created a page, and slotted in the piper, but Matthew will have to go and insert a citation for him, as I've marked it CN. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This is awkward, but apparently I confused locales: Hunsley lived in Manton, Linolnshire, while a modern pipemaker who re-created the Lincolnshire pipes in the 1990s was the own who lived in South Somercotes. I've wikilinked South Somercotes on the pipes page, and removed my mistaken mention of Hunsley from the Somercotes page. Sorry for the confusion, but glad that another civil parish has been added to your product. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The South Somercotes article is largely about the church, but there is a more extensive article St Peter's Church, South Somercotes. Candidates for a merger? BTW, does anyone know for sure what "greenstone" is? See Talk:St Peter's Church, South Somercotes.TSRL (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I wrote the new article, and used the pastscape entry as a good, verifiable, source of data. Since the general rule is that civil parishes are notable enough to have their own entries, I suspect that it would be more consistent to leave the rest of the entry as a stub and move whatever was useful to the entry for the redundant church, then make a wikilink to it. There are a few other readily-accessible historic facts about medieval and prehistoric sites to provide a line or two of history. Since the article for North Somercotes could do with a significant re-write, It would be nice if we could involve someone local to do both.

I am not a real geologist, but I am fairly sure that there is no proper Greenstone in Europe. Greenstone is a sort of catch-all name for metamorphosed igneous rocks, highly mineralised, used for stone-age carvings and artifacts. But there are the upper and lower Greensand deposits in chalky areas, and although normally associated with the south coast, there are deposits in Cambridgeshire/Peterborough and in the so-called "Spilsby Sandstones" of the Weald. St James church is built of green sandstone, and there are other churches, Willoughby and Horncastle, for example, built of this where it is called "greenstone". Have a look at this BGS map mash-up and zoom in on the pink 'handprint' around South Ormsby, for example. I think that 'Greenstone' is a local name, or sloppy church guidebook writing, for Greensand. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Great North Road

Proposing a split from A1 road (Great Britain). See Talk:A1 road (Great Britain)#Great North Road (Split?). Simply south...... 19:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

do we care?

I notice that Horace Henshall is unassessed for the Lincolnshire project. I went and looked, and it is about football, so nothing I can help with. Reading the article the chap only lived in Lincoln for 3 years and achieved nothing of any lasting value in that time. Do we really need this article in the project at all? --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 11:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln City manager is only claim to link with Lincolnshire. I started discussion above, some time back, about who we should tag and only got 1 response. Going on that response no we should not have him tagged. Biographies are always a problem to determine what to tag and not to tag, especially if you try it automatically by just looking at the categories the people are in. Keith D (talk) 13:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, zapped Jackie Hutton James Montgomerie and Horace Henshall. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 08:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

On a similar basis what about articles like 2007–08 Grimsby Town F.C. season? I can understand having Grimsby Town F.C. in the project, but the individual season pages seem a bit over-specialist. If we do need them, perhaps the person creating them could always enter the same assesment? I've been assesing them |class=list because some have already been done like that. Is that correct? And why are the season articles not linked to, or even hinted at, on the club page? --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Most season articles are not really list articles as they contain text describing the season, so I assess them as normal articles. Personally I cannot see how you can be interested in the top level article without the sub-articles on the season so I would assume that all projects interested in the club article should be interested in all of the season, stats etc articles that are below the club article. The club page should have a link to the current season in the infobox and an entry in the club template for the list of seasons list that should point out to the individual season articles. Keith D (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Templates

I've created the missing list of templates, and added a new one {{Lincolnshire-railstation-stub}} --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Already got 41 members of Category:Lincolnshire railway station stubs. Further contributions gratefully received. done some article assessing along the way too. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 08:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

There are articles like Heritage Trust of Lincolnshire and Theatre Royal, Lincoln which are stubs, but we don't have a template/category for cultural stubs. Do we need one? (I put the structure stub on on the theatre, but it didn't seem right) --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 08:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I just spotted the rail station stub and queried it, as all new stubs are supposed to be proposed first at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. Keith D (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I trod on any toes, it didn't seem controversial. Why are stub categories controlled if e.g. Buildings and structures are not?--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure but all stubs are controlled in this way. I guess as it is the project that is doing the work. Keith D (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I had been planning to build a list and take some railway histories to Russia with me this year, and try to beat them all up. But not if its going to cause trouble., I might do something else with my evenings.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't look too bad, propose a stub and if nobody objects in five days you can create it. I think what you're proposing is a good idea ... don't let the system drag you down ;-) DancingGerbil (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Not a case of if you trod on any toes, more a case not to have stubbed your toe. Excuse the pun. --BSTemple (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2011/January#Category:Lincolnshire_railway_station_stubs created. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 06:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion so far is fairly negative --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably not going to Russia now, had an accident at work and won't be fit in time. So that plan is rather moot now. RL strikes again. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Now what about the unclassifiable things? Heritage Trust of Lincolnshire and Theatre Royal, Lincoln? if there aren't enough then what about just Category:Lincolnshire_stubs? --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 06:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Would probably keep them all together and make them easy to find. Keith D (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Files

File talk:Ruskington-High-Street-South lookin towards the church.JPG carries a project banner, and hence appears in Wikipedia:WikiProject Lincolnshire/Assessment.

Is that right? should we be doing that to all 524 pictures in commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Lincolnshire ? --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally I cannot see any point in tagging files that are actually located on Commons for the project as it would only pick up someone using the same filename to upload different file here. I would only tag files that are located on Wikipedia. Keith D (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Removed tag --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Postcode areas & assesment

See Talk:LN_postcode_area#Mid_importance.3F. Why is the LN postcode list 'Mid' & the others 'Low' ? (Ok, I just made DN Low but that was by copying PE)--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Can't see any reason, so I'll make it low. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Merging

Anyone know why Twyford Forest&Twyford Wood are separate articles? --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Both were created by the same user in 2005. Keith D (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't like delete or merge proposals. They seem destructive to me, and discourage creation of new material. Disrespectful. I'd only suggest doing it if he's not active.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 10:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks like Twyford Wood is part of Kesteven Forest [Forestry Commission Website]. I'm not convinced it's two places DancingGerbil (talk) 11:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

In this case it is best to merge into Twyford Wood bringing over info and refs.--BSTemple (talk) 11:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

No, they are two names for one place, under different FC organisation eras. SK950230 That's what made me ask (The site was a WW2 aerodrome, the name comes from a Deserted medieval village nearby SK929229). The OS map calls it Twyford Wood so I agree if we do merge that should be the article. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Sleaford

Is this good enough for GA status?--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I would think it would struggle with referencing as it stands. There are several {{fact}} tags in article, the "Notable Sleafordians" and " Traditions" sections are unreferenced. The other references are missing detail on publisher, published date, access date etc.. Keith D (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Parish, village, hamlet

I've been doing some assessing. There are a lot of unfinished pages out there, and a lot of inconsistencies. Consider:

• Careby Aunby and Holywell - One page for the civil/eclesiastical parish, all settlements mentioned.
• Aslackby redirects to Aslackby and Laughton#Aslackby - one page for parish, with redirects for invidvidual pages - presumably pre-existing the parish page.
• Aswarby is a stub, with minimal content already added, and a wikilink to Aswarby and Swarby, the parish, which is a real stub. Swarby does not exist.
• Castle Bytham and Bytham Castle are not entirely consistent with each other over coverage of the castle. It's more like differing points of view.

If we are to be a project, should we not have a policy? There seems to be two separate movements going on: one dedicated to an article for everywhere on List of places in Lincolnshire with it's avowed idea that every placename printed on an OS 1:25K is a valid entry; and one dedicated to ensuring each civil parish has a page, even if the constituent villages already have a well-written entry. I can't believe we can, or should, reverse either juggernaut. But we might be able to build something bigger from the wreckage of the two.

I propose the following:

• Every Civil Parish in List of civil parishes in Lincolnshire should have a page (nearly done)
• If a civil parish has more than one settlement, each settlement in List of places in Lincolnshire should have a page. (close to complete)
• The civil parishes should not replicate the contents of the settlement pages.
• The civil parishes should transclude in the contents of the settlement pages.
• The settlement pages should be written with <include only> </include only> (etc.) tags so that the detail appears wherever people look for it.

The table at WP:Lincs#Assessments has no facility for indicating progress to this aim. Perhaps we need a Category:Lincolnshire_parish_policy_required for the talk page?

I guess we would need to find a way to separately transclude in things like "external links" from the settlement pages.

A good place to try this out might be Greetham with Somersby where the civil parish page does not exist. I will do something about that over the next few days, health permitting. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 10:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that we should be transluding in the settlement pages into the civil parish page, the civil parish should probably just contain a short summary of the settlement articles as per WP:Summary style. The civil parish article should use the {{Infobox England and Wales civil parish}}, probably with a map of the parish in the county. For the East Riding of Yorkshire I have created civil parish articles for this parishes that do not have the same name as any of the settlements, but if it has the same name then just noted civil parish as part of intro. I have not got very far with this just but Anlaby with Anlaby Common is a basic civil parish stub. Keith D (talk) 13:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I've just created Edenham Grimsthorpe Elsthorpe & Scottlethorpe in the manner you suggest, and moved across the appropriate stuff from Edenham. Is that the sort of thing you meant? (I've also reduced the suggestion above) --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That looks something like I was thinking about. I would switch to the parish infobox rather than the settlement infobox and add a governance section as that is what the parish is about. Keith D (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Tried that. Why on earth is the syntax so different? Could not work out what to do with the map. Too difficult for an invalid! Governance might be a bit thin. The parish council is not on line, so that would mean district ward and county councillors names. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The maps are not the usual blank locator map just a file highlighting the whole parish on the map of civil parishes in county. I have created the derived work for this parish and uploaded to commons File:Edenham Grimsthorpe Elsthorpe & Scottlethorpe UK parish locator map.svg. Thanks must go to Nilfanion for creating the base maps for each of the counties. Keith D (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how you did that, but I've had a go: changed the infobox and added the administrative arrangements in Edenham Grimsthorpe Elsthorpe & Scottlethorpe. 30 years ago the school would have gone in the parish page, but kids from Elsthorpe are now bussed to Bourne, and Grimsthorpe to Corby Glen, so I have left it in the village page. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Easy when you know how. I just got to do it last week, Nilfanion guided me through and has produced instructions and all you need is notepad and some time. Keith D (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

done Careby Aunby and Holywell on the same basis. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

May be better to keep to the same file naming convention for them all without the brackets and the parish name at the start. Keith D (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Photos of police stations

I've been over on commons, categorising geograph photos of lincolnshire. Done abot 600 so far. I've started on Commons:Category:Emergency services in Lincolnshire and can't find many pictures of police stations, cars etc.

Are people frit of terrorism rules or summat? I've found all the fire stations & lots of hospitals, barely any ambulances. but only two police stations.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 09:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Spalding Amateur Dramatic And Operatic Society

Does anyone know anything about Spalding Amateur Dramatic And Operatic Society? The article seems to be going nowhere. That does not mean the society does not exist. The Bourne Boderers morris team is as active as it ever was, despite having almost no web profile. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The main article claims that Spalding ADOS is the oldest theatre group in England. Sorry - not so. We believe that the Manchester Athenaeum Amateur Dramatic Society is the oldest active amateur theatre group(possibly in the world). It was founded in 1847 by members of the Manchester Athenaeum gentleman's club who wanted to do more that just read plays and is still active today presenting three productions a year. A potted history is available from our secretary on application. IanDarke (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Assesment criteria

Not had the stamina or research to carry on with civil parishes at the moment. So I have been looking at unassessed articles, mainly railway related.

So see proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lincolnshire/Assessment--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 07:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I've done what I can with railw\y, village, and road articles that were class= or importance= ??? . I really don't know anything about Football (and care the square root of that) So I've left them for someone who does.

Same with politicians, electionz, and historic administrative areas. Don't know enough to contribute, it's over to zomeone else.

But I reckon I've taken over 500 articles out of the unclassified bin. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed that Category:WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria articles has no unclassified article4s. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Still plodding on with removing 'stub' banners and re-assesing settlements. Will go back to railway stations when I have the enthusiasm.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 14:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've been through all the settlements and all the railway stations, I reckon I've taken around 400 out of 'stub/low' into more appropriate categories. There was a lot of good stuff done recently.

A lot of railway stations really are stubs.

I'm not going to touch the politicians or football stuff - about which I know nothing and care less. Someone else will have to do those.

Not sure about the 'road' articles. I think we should just use whatever the road project reckons, but they don't seem to do assesments.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Found & dealt with a few more Settlements & stations. Really think theay are all done now--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 07:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Weelsby

Articles for Weelsby & Weelsby Woods are well-written but need serious work on the references.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Gainsborough Old Hall

Gainsborough Old Hall needs help too.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 10:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a nice place, and it's a shame there aren't better photos available. I went through flickr, but this was all I could find. As the hall's a Grade I listed building and a Scheduled Monument there's some stuff online that could be used to expand the article: [1] [2] [3] [4]. Nev1 (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Theatre Royal, Lincoln

I've added to this. Should it be taken off the list? Acabashi (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Martin_Vickers - article assesment.

Have a peek at this talk page and see what you think--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

This points out succinctly, perhaps inadvertently, one of the problems with Wikipedia “notability”, and what I believe is its over-emphasis on recentism – something that Wikipedia claims to be against, but for me gives the impression of giving institutionalized support. The “Bish”, Alexander, was a Chancellor of England and instigated the rebuilding of one of the great English Cathedrals. In his time he probably had an immensely greater influence over his society than a local MP or comedienne has over ours. But because of the plethora of information in the media about people living since the beginning of the 20th century, and particularly in the last 15 years of web-life, the ‘who is considered as important’ has been skewed, ridiculously to my mind. Put Saunders back in the 12th century as one of many court jesters, or Vickers as a minor regional advisor, who would be important: they or the Bish? You could say that we, at the cutting edge of history, can make these decisions based on what we think is important to our times. It’s what I call the “arrogance of the now” – the curse of every generation. In 20, 50 or a 100 years time, those whom we think are important will raise an eyebrow of distain. My view is that we should also consider how people, with their current supposed importance placed against historic importance of previous and proved “notables”, might be considered now and in the future. I suspect that Saunders and Vickers, given their current record, will all but be forgotten, even if we cannot yet see “significant effect beyond their lifetimes” as they are not yet dead. I would reduce both to “Low”.

I would agree that that Alexander could be reduced from High to Mid, but only as it appears from the Lord Chancellors I have looked at, when rated, are rated as such. However, if others think that the rebuilding of Lincoln Cathedral, a Lord Chancellorship of England, and the fullsome detailed nature of his article over other Lord Chancellors' articles. deserves more than this for the Lincolnshire Project then so be it; I’m not overly-exercised on this.

However, Alfred Lord Tennyson is definitely of “High” importance, not just for Lincolnshire but nationally and internationally, even after 100 years – a record that would also appear to suggest that this “fame”, and it is fame, will continue.

BTW, why is not Matthew Flinders in the project? – Undoubtedly at least “Mid”, I think “High”.

Acabashi (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy with High for Tennyson, Flinders, Banks, and Boole. And the Bish. I've demoted our wannabes as well. I've also thrown in Nicholas Parsons, Boothby Graffoe. Oh and Poet Ben, and astronaut Mike.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 10:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I’m supposing that the criteria for people-addition in the project includes significant national or international notability, (otherwise all blue-linked yellowbellies would go in), and those whose articles requires work - here are two such (and interesting ones) who were born, raised and lived in Lincs: Doris Stokes (Grantham) and Beverley Allitt (Corby Glen / Grantham) – these are untagged but could do with some development or editing. And John Harrison raised from age 7 in Barrow upon Humber – article needs cites. I notice that many Lincs people articles randomly checked are devoid of suitable cats – I shall make a leisurely trawl through them now and then to add such. Acabashi (talk) 12:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I posted a long reply here which seems to have vanished. Good luck with the cats.

BTW I once went to a Doris Stokes meeting with my Gran, an experienced de-bunker. Stokes was, of course, a fraud but I'm not sure she was aware of that. And I remember Beverly Allitt as a child and a young woman. I wasn't at all surprised by her imprisonment, although was surprised by what she was imprisoned for. Robert EA Harvey (talk) 05:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Very soon after my mother moved to Grantham from North Lincs for war work at MAP, she went to the Grantham Spiritualist Church to see the young Stokes in private session. Stokes "saw" and "communicated" with an old lady in a flowered bonnet. My mother thought many old ladies, like her grandmother, frequently put flowers in their hats, so was sceptical, even though Stokes got her name straight-out without seeming to fish. Being a quiet and extremely private person, mother had not told anything to anybody about her life before Grantham, but Stokes, without asking any questions or casting-around different names, said "Reg" was there. He "spoke" in specific detail through Stokes of the motorcycle accident in which he was killed in the subsequent fire, and of my mother riding pillion and being permanently injured. There were the expected apologies from Reg. But the whole thing was right on the button. I said you must have told somebody in Grantham about the accident; my mother said she hadn't told a soul and there were details that she alone knew. She was still rather sceptical even though she swore she gave nothing away - hardly talking at all; but of course psychics can be very clever. Spooky. Acabashi (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Rutland

This project should cover Rutland pages as well. Wilbysuffolk Talk to me 15:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I cannot see Rutland having a separate project, unless there are a lot of active editors for the area, so may be it could be covered here. Would need some discussion on how to incorporate it, may be using work-groups. Any thoughts? Keith D (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure you don't mean the Leics page should cover Rutland? DancingGerbil (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Do not think we have a Leicestershire project at the moment. Keith D (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm starting a Leic.. & Rutland Project.Wilbysuffolk Talk to me 19:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)