Jump to content

User talk:KJP1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Whack!
You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

Worldbruce (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Future use

[edit]

Notes to self

[edit]

Dragon

[edit]

Hi KJP1. I've noticed that you've been reviewing DragonofBatley's edits recently. I have had long-standing concerns about his editing, but have found him difficult to engage with either due to WP:Competence issues or his sometimes highly combative tone. I had a run in a while ago and have intention to engage with him again. IMO his is a good example of the sort of low-level, seemingly good-faith editing which can be highly disruptive when there are competency issues - however, it's often the hardest to deal with on WP mostly because it flies under most editor's radars. However, I've discovered this, which makes me question whether this is all well-meaning: [3]. Could well be trolling, but it's bizarre if so. Thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Noswall59 - Yes, I also noticed that, and was equally puzzled by it. For me, it doesn't have the feel of trolling, but I could well be wrong. Whatever the motivation, it is certainly problematic editing. They are obsessively creating masses of, largely non-notable, "place" articles, and sourcing them apparently at random. Except they aren't random, there is often some linked word, suggesting they are running an internet search and just slapping in whatever turns up without actually reading it. I've asked them - again - for an explanation. Whether I get one... KJP1 (talk) 06:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with your diagnosis about the editing. I don't think the editing itself is done in bad faith -- I do think Dragon is trying to help; this is just a textbook case of WP:CIR to me. However, I think the revision to their user page which I linked above is, above all, especially concerning. In particular, Dragon's block log is clean, yet they said "I've been hiding for so long I was banned a few times. Still got through the radar for 4 years unnoticed". Are they admitting to evading a ban/block through sock-puppetry? A strange move if so. I'm glad that this is all getting some scrutiny now. Thanks for your diligence. All the best, -- Noswall59 (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does raise concerns about ban evasion to me. If someone is doing a WP:CLEANSTART, that post would be the wrong way to go about it. If there are also WP:CIR concerns, this may be something that should go to WP:ANI or WP:SPI. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You both may well be right. I'd wanted to deal, at least with the source integrity issue, without going to ANI. My hope was that they'd agree to voluntarily put new articles through the AfC process. But despite my asking them not to, they have gone ahead and created another article (over a re-direct) which has exactly the same source integrity problems. Then there is the separate, but related, issue of Notability. And then there's their weird Talkpage message. Perhaps I should just take it all to ANI and let others have a look/make a call on next steps. KJP1 (talk) 08:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked into it, beyond the discussion here. If you do decide to follow-up, please feel free to ping me, and I'll see if I can help. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciated. Not sure how it's going to pan out. They're currently angry and are lashing about. Hopefully, they'll calm down and think rationally. KJP1 (talk) 10:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear ive not taken my bat and gone home. I went off to cool down. And there is no sockpuppetry involved. It was a joke. I role play. Maybe it was not an appropriate thing but i do. Ive had one user change name and that is it. Now i am calm. Please do tell me what to improve? And i will take @KJP1suggestion for AfC since I did so with Lawley Bank and will do with future articles or i could sandbox create it and ask for input? DragonofBatley (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish / SchroCat / Noswall59 - While the immediate problem may have diminished, as Dragon appears to have taken their bat home, I remain worried by the 427 articles they've created. And, of course, there is the possibility that they will restart their activities at a time of their choosing. I've been doing some spot checking and, almost, every one I look at has the same issues. Examples are, Croyland and Swanspool - 2 tags; Hatton Park - 1 tag; Belmont, Northwich - 8 tags, out of 9 cites in total! Do you think I should still take this to ANI, to guard against recurrence? And is there somewhere similar to Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations where editors can work through the articles already created to check for issues. As I know, that can be a rather dull task! But I fear it's very likely many of these articles will have Failed Verification issues. Any advice appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any similar investigation pathway, which is a shame, as its exactly what is needed here. I've dropped a few of his pages back to draft as they fail even the most basic tests, and it wouldn't surprise me if nearly all of them are problematic in one way or another. Also pinging PamD, whose name I have seen on several of these articles, tagging and pointing out the multiple errors. - SchroCat (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. Yes, it does need something like CCI. And thanks for pinging PamD. I'd also be grateful for her advice on Notability of wards/suburbs. I've pushed a couple of these to AfD as the sourcing was so weak, and I don't think wards and suburbs are inherently notable, but Pam will likely know for sure. KJP1 (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) Eh what, just "a rather dull task"? Surely not! Martinevans123 (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that! I withdraw the remark. And place on record that it was the absolute highpoint of my time here, and my proudest achievement. KJP1 (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was also thinking of a CCI-like failed verification project. Although CCI wouldn't be the answer... perhaps a dedicated one-off sub-page of WP:WPRE would be best.
However, I'm against taking this to ANI just yet. Due to the user's lack of responsiveness, I was previously in favour of such an action, but DragonofBatley seems to be listening and accepting feedback. I don't think it's appropriate to drag someone to ANI while also talking with them on their talk page. Give him a chance to fix up his mistakes: he is, as PamD says, an enthusiastic editor. I think at this point the best course of action is some careful guidance/mentoring, encouragement towards the AfC process, and some monitoring of edits, but not a loud ANI discussion or blocks or sanctions yet.
For these reasons, KJP1, I'm strongly urging you to at least wait to raise this at ANI. At the bare minimum, see how this discussion plays out and we can look at his subsequent writing efforts.
Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 21:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please, no, it's fine to go ahead tomorrow. I checked the linked discussion, and I don't see any reason to delay any further. I realize it can't be easy for KJP1 to keep getting conflicting input about this, but going back and forth any longer is just postponing the inevitable. Better to rip the bandage off, and take it where more people can look at the evidence and decide for themselves. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The bandage has been ripped off. I actually agreed to change but it is at least from your reply too little too late to fix things. By the way not instigating anything. I'm responding based on the response and terms used. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, as I've been pinged to this discussion. Dragon is, I think, the only editor who has dragged me to ANI - see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1131#PamD and I'm feeling intentionally stalked. It's a bit of a wall of text. Near the end he states that he is "on the spectrum" (as a reason for objecting to his username being abbreviated ... though somewhere else, later, he said he was happy to be DoB or Dragon). He was previously editing as RailwayJG.

He has been an enthusiastic editor, and I do tend to look at his contributions list because he edits almost entirely about places in England, where I live, and I know from experience that I am likely to be able to contribute some helpful cleanup or other improvements to his article creations or major edits (fixing incomplete sentences, unlinking years or centuries, using the {{NHLE}} template, adding churches to their relevant dab pages, etc). He sometimes words things poorly, and has done some horribly careless edits over the years, such as the geographical muddle here where he left a place being "east of Portsmouth and west of Southampton".

He seems keen lately to create articles about subsections of towns, where these are perhaps electoral wards, sometimes just housing estates / business parks / vague locations, in cases where the reader would usually be better served by a single article covering the town (with incoming redirects, of course). (Notability of wards is a topic which gets raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography or elsewhere from time to time but with no real consensus. Personally I think wards are not notable as such, even if census info is available for them, although lists of wards, with incoming redirects/dab page entries, might be useful for some places.) An example of fragmentation is Market Place (Wragby), where I think the reader would be better served if it was merged into Wragby. There are articles for many probably-non-notable wards of Lincoln, Telford and other places.

I have a feeling that the eccentric sourcing is a fairly recent phenomenon, where any mention of a place in any text found in Google books is enough to justify adding it as a ref, even if the text "Skegness is a haven, village, ..." is then taken as a source for Haven Village. A sad thing is that sometimes there's actually a source there which does have some interesting information about the place, but it's ignored and the source is just used a evidence of the existence of the place. The article St Peter and St Paul Church, Caistor, as he left it, cited an 1840 book apparently to support the NHLE listing, while the book actually included a fascinating story, supported by other sources, about "The Gad Whip", which I then added.

He may or may not be making a final departure. He is obviously someone who has spent a lot of their time editing Wikipedia, mostly about British settlements and railways, and almost entirely editing in good faith (there was the one drunken attempt to add himself as a notable resident of Batley...) and would miss the activity hugely if he did stop completely. I think the care he gives his editing has improved since (OK, four years ago) he left an article in this state - notice the map, and the diocese in the infobox! (It was later deleted at AfD). It's just a pity that some of what he has produced has been substandardly-sourced, or carelessly-created, or of doubtful notability. PamD 18:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pam - I appreciate the full response. And I think you are a more tolerant editor than I manage to be! Unless there are strong views to the contrary, I'm going to let this one lie for now. But looking through the 2023 case, I am struck at how similar the issues we're dealing with are to those of two years ago. I don't always agree with David Gerrard, but his response to DragonofBatley then does sum it up very well: "It looks very much like...a competence issue on your part. I can appreciate that you don't like having your repeated and persistent insertion of errors being called out, but the root cause is your repeated and persistent insertion of errors". I have a gut feeling we shall have to revisit this at some point. KJP1 (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KJP1, I'm a bit late responding to your ping, but I've tried to get caught up with what people are saying here. Pam explained the name change, which looks to me like that answers the "other accounts" issue to my satisfaction. As for the competence issues, I'm inclined to come down on the side of "yes, this should go to ANI", but I'm also swamped with other things, and I don't edit in those areas, so it's not my problem if the problems continue. Reporting to CCI sounds like a needed action, but that's something where there are tremendous backlogs, so just don't expect anything fast. If you, Pam, and other editors are content to risk letting the problems continue a bit longer, that's OK with me, but it's not the decision I would likely make if they were editing in my topic areas. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KJP1: thanks for the tag. And thanks also Pam for an insightful overview of Dragon's editing history. Sorry for the length -- I did not intend this to be such a long reply but I think it's helpful nonetheless as I evidence a fair few points; I've collapsed my full response as I don't want a wall of text to disrupt your talk page. TLDR: I think there are three core issues here: (1) adherence to guidelines and policies relating to article creation and content; (2) civility; and (3) possible sock-puppetry. I think this should go to ANI, but I do not know what a good outcome looks like; at the very least, extra eyes on this and the 420+ creations is a good thing (and that statistic is pretty scary to me). Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Noswall - thanks. The comments are exceptionally helpful, and no need at all to apologise for the length. To wrap this discussion up, there is a very clear consensus, here and on User:DragonofBatley's Talkpage, that this should go to ANI. As the one who raised it, I shall do that tomorrow. KJP1 (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No need to. I made the referall now. You and the others have all been pinged accordingly. If I cannot resolve it without ANI. I'll go there like I have now to resolve this. DragonofBatley (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noswall59 comments at length

On (1), I have encountered Dragon's edits many times over the last few years as I also edit articles about UK places, particularly in Lincolnshire. IMO, there are core competency issues here -- even the way that Dragon responds on talk pages leads me to question his ability to write cogently and clearly, but the proof is in the pudding and we've seen numerous reported issues around verifiability, notability and quality be raised in the last few days. He also frequently cites policies but has been called out before for having clearly not read or understood them (e.g., [4]). 420+ creations is scary in light of all that. But also, just look at the sheer volume of content-related issues that have been brought to his talk page over the years, many by Pam in a diligent and astonishingly patient effort to educate him. This is a textbook case of WP:CIR, as harsh as I think that policy sounds; we are here to make an encyclopedia and that requires more than good intention. Unfortunately, competency issues often fly under the radar, especially when the editors concerned are engaged in good-faith editing on very niche topics, like minor suburban localities, disused railway stations and census wards. Most editors won't encounter these outputs, and when they do they may not notice the problems -- often seeing an article that appears well-cited and correct but so technical and niche that they can't judge it's erroneous, non-notable or unverified. I have certainly improved my own editing over the decade or so I've been here, and I've done so by listening, watching what others do well, and challenging myself to improve. I think we all want Dragon to improve, but I question whether he has the intention or the capacity given the help he's received to date, his attitude to criticism, and these persistent issues.

This leads on to civility. He can be friendly and helpful, but he can also be challenging to engage with, especially when challenged himself. He tends to lash out, accuse other editors of ganging up on him, and can flippantly say things (like "joke" about evading bans when under heavy scrutiny) which seem to be in very poor judgement and possibly constitute trolling. He can go on lengthy tirades to these ends. He has been called out for posting content on his userpage which incites violence [5], and has also included expletive content there [6]. My own brief run in with him (at 1, 2) over some edits to Skegness left a pretty sour taste in my mouth and I made a conscious choice to avoid him again. That was a long time ago, but the responses we've seen of late suggest that not much has changed. Pam points out that Dragon alleges he has an autistic spectrum disorder, so I am mindful of this; but, in my view, that cannot be justification for permitting incivility and disruption. We are a volunteer organisation and we need people to work with each other and edit constructively; for legitimate reasons not everyone can do that and that's a shame.

Finally, (3). I've outlined my concerns about sockpuppetry above. I don't think the RailwayJG alias is enough to make me feel comfortable that he was referring to that account name change in his comments, because I can't see anything in RailwayJG's block log either -- he's referred several times to having been banned, but recently claimed that this was a joke or sarcasm. I cannot fathom why someone would out themselves so brazenly if true, but I also cannot fathom why someone would "joke" about this when under so much heat. Something's not right. Most of us edit anonymously so we have to trust that we're doing so in good faith otherwise the system breaks down. I'm struggling to trust here. In sum, I think this does need to go to ANI. Dragon's retirement could be permanent, but in my experience these things seldom are - and if this behaviour resumes in a few months when the heat's off, the problem could go unaddressed again. It's hard to see what a good outcome looks like here -- an admonishment, a topic ban from new creations, a full block? I like KJP1's suggestion of mandatory AFC but he's shown unwillingness to engage so something more formal may be needed. None of this deals with potential pre-existing problems in those 400+ articles; more eyes may at least help work through the backlog.

January music

[edit]
story · music · places

Thank you for improving the Welsh composer, now fit for article space! - Liebster Immanuel, Herzog der Frommen, BWV 123, my story today 300 years after the first performance, is up for GAN. Dada Masilo will be my story tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My story today is about a composer who influenced music history also by writing.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... and today, pictured on the Main page, Tosca, in memory of her first appearance on stage OTD in 1900, and of principal author Brian Boulton. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today I have a composer (trumpeter, conductor) on the main page who worked closely with another who became GA yesterday, - small world! To celebrate: mostly flowers pics from vacation ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for Castell Coch, introduced (in 2015) as "a quaint Gothic Revival castle to the north of Cardiff in south Wales, which was built by William Burges for John Crichton-Stuart, 3rd Marquess of Bute in the 1870s. A castle had existed on the site in medieval times but later fell into ruin. The interior design of the castle has been cited as one of the shining examples of the High Victorian Gothic, though Bute rarely used the place as a residence. For a period a vineyard was cultivated at the castle, unusual in Britain. Today it is run by the Welsh heritage agency Cadw."! - As it happened, my story is also about a building, because its architect would have been 105 today. (When the DYK appeared, he was still alive.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Me (DragonofBatley). Thank you. Tarlby (t) (c) 22:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Listed buildings images

[edit]

I've spent quite a while adding images and Commons categories to the lists. Something that would be nice is if we were able to get an image of every Grade I listed building but I don't think that's that much of a practical project given that I think there are several hundred Grade I listed buildings with no images scattered across the country. Anyway thankyou for you're work with listed buildings and cleaning up DragonofBatley's work. I might see if I can help out there though something I have pointed out to them is WP:SUBCAT but they have still been doing it where they but a settlement article in both a parish category and the district category the parish is in. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A photo of every Grade I, and an article/sub-article, would indeed be an achievement. We're managed the second, for Wales, but it's still a huge challenge for the rest of the UK. Looking at Grade I listed buildings in Essex, the first that comes up after Westminster, I think we've as many that don't have articles as do, and there are 23 missing images. But we all plough on! And your help on the DoB reviewing would be much appreciated. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 07:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly achievable - I think as our impossible project advances - accessibility to sites becomes an issue. No Swan So Fine (talk) 08:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DragonofBatley AfDs

[edit]

Hi KJP1. Hope may comment at the AN/I didn't come across as criticism of you putting forward too many AfDs. No, the number is OK so far. What I'm saying is, if there's a deluge it becomes harder for interested editors to devote adequate time to assess. It may be an idea to keep a schedule of the AfDs and their outcomes. Rupples (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rupples - Not at all. I'm fully aware that I'm less familiar with WP:GEOLAND etc. as they apply to very small areas, than you, Pam or Crouch Swale, among others. It's not that I'm opposed to such articles, I recently did a couple just on streets, e.g. Barton Street and Cowley Street, Westminster, it just that I find some of the ones we're looking at to be so weakly sourced that there seems to be almost no content to retain or to merge. And I appreciate we no more want to overwhelm AfD, than we did AfC. I shall take it slowly, and check in with you/Cremastra/Pam etc. before AfD'ing where they seem to be edge cases. And a record is a very good idea. I'll add on to the sandbox. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 06:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant - that was quick! It's useful to see whether nominations are generally on the right track, as evidenced by a lack of "keep" outcomes - I'm confident this will be the case. Rupples (talk) 09:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder whether a lot of the non-notable wards and "suburbs" could be WP:BOLDly redirected to their town/parish, after ensuring that the relevant target article has a list of wards for election to its council, or a mention of housing estates/business parks/whatever that include the dubious topic? It might reduce the load at AfD. If challenged, the move to a redirect could easily be reverted and the article then taken to AfD. PamD 10:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a grand idea, and perhaps we do need to be a bit bolder. But I don't want to get too far in until we can involve DragonofBatley. We know that we could tidy them up ourselves, but if we are to have another go at getting them to improve their own editing, we have to get them doing some of the reviewing, with support. As a related aside, where did they get the idea that wards/tiny bits of towns were generally notable? What's the driver for all these poorly-sourced stubs? KJP1 (talk) 11:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it just the "look at this long list of articles I've created" urge? There was an earlier phase of "built up areas", and he has also created articles on "X city centre" (or Market Place (Wragby)), which unnecessarily split the content about the place. He recently seems to have taken up categorisation, creating a category for every parish even when there's only the parish, the list of listed buildings, and perhaps one church or person at most, and making questionable, hierarchy-breaking, creations like Category:Civil parishes in Telford and Wrekin which I've taken to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 19#Category:Civil parishes in Telford and Wrekin. PamD 11:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pam, for ease, I've copied the suggestion to here, User:KJP1/sandbox10-DoB, where we're keeping a centralised record of the clean up activity. KJP1 (talk) 11:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see that DoB has returned to editing, and I see your comment on his talk page about a new edit that violates his editing restriction. I haven't checked that edit myself, but if he is violating the restrictions, that needs to be reported to ANI. We are past the point where telling him what is or is not restricted makes sense anymore. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:12, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speech Room, Harrow School

[edit]

A Burges design, or one piggy backed on by others? The guides have it down as being one of Billy's, but two notables ended up finishing it off. Sir Charles Nicholson, someone who I know quite well (and Laurence Olivier's uncle, no less), came along 50 years later and "faithfully realized" Billy's design by completing the north tower, according to the Guides. Herbert Baker, later still, came along to top off the south tower. One does wonder just how much of Billy's original designs exist! CassiantoTalk 15:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto - Bloody cheek. I have, in a box somewhere as all of my pictures still are, an illustration from The Builder of around 1870, showing it as Billy B left it. The interior is much as he designed it but you're right about the exterior. To my considerable regret, I never found my way to Harrow to see it. And likely now never will. But I don't rue that as much as never having made it to Ceoil's neck of the woods! Hope you are keeping well. KJP1 (talk) 06:50, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would imagine the interior remains pretty much intact - but as DBaK says below, it would take a brave fellow to find out, without getting his collar felt. On another note, I found out today that Billy submitted a design for the Royal Courts of Justice in the 1870s. I mean, it's a pretty bloody impressive building as it is - perhaps the highest of all high Victorian buildings, so one can only imagine what it would've been like under Billy's pen. CassiantoTalk 20:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If either of ye ever make it to Cork, I can guarantee a few (3-4) pints in Sin é, which serves the best Guinness in the known world. Great to see you around Cassianto. Ceoil (talk) 07:16, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely to see you here, too, Ceoil. I know you like your tombs, as do I, so thought I'd share these with you, which I had listed with Historic England, last year: [7], [8], and [9]. I spend most of my online time there now submitting applications for interesting things to be listed. Please give my best to Liz. CassiantoTalk 20:44, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was very excited to see this. We're currently doing the Capital Ring (health permitting) and the very next section we are due to do is section 9, Greenford to South Kenton, which not only passes through Harrow School but mentions the Speech Room in the walk notes! ... while on your left lies the impressive Gothic-style Speech Room ... I shall look forward even more to this now I've seen mention of it in the school's and Burges's articles! Cheers DBaK (talk) 12:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DBaK - exciting indeed! I shall expect some excellent shots to be uploaded to Commons, ideally with some interior images. Though I’ve no idea how accesible it is. Something tells me that, in these more challenging times, you will not be able to just saunter onto school premises from the street. Though someone ought to tell them that they have a Grade II* building on their hands, rather than a mere Grade II, [10]. Perhaps if you offered to sponsor a chair? KJP1 (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. In exchange for some images, I shall do an article. It warrants one. KJP1 (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try for photos if I can without being arrested! DBaK (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The public right of way appears to go past it but there is no mention of access to buildings, which might be a step too far! DBaK (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even some decent exterior shots would be good. We have a grand total of six on Commons, one good exterior image, and one very nice panorama of the interior. Other than that, they are blurry, oblique, or old b&w’s. KJP1 (talk) 22:06, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, thanks. DBaK (talk) 10:53, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

built-up areas

[edit]

It didn't click for me until you mentioned it in yesterday's AFD discussions that the machine-generated built-up areas were given to us by the same person who gave us the contrived "suburbs" (which I held off analysing on your cleanup page because I thought that it might become overwhelming and I wanted to give everyone a chance to catch up). I hadn't been paying attention to the article creator, just the geography.

I just finished making a good stub for Wombridge, by the way, just to show what can be written. I haven't even touched the VCH as a source, there.

Uncle G (talk) 06:14, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Uncle G - Your notes are exceptionally helpful, thanks. Do please continue them. We just need to think through how to turn them into ACTIONs. As we saw at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westcroft, Staffordshire, AfD can be a bit variable. Thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 07:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Belatedly realising this slew of AfDs on British geo topics is to do with Dragon. I'd suggest the least-effort approach is to redirect these without even bothering with prod. I'll try not to contest any prods I trip over if I see Dragon is the creator, though the one I nearly contested recently (Gamble Hill) turns out to be one of Crouch, Swale's. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:19, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Espresso Addict - first, apologies for the delay in responding. Second, thanks very much for the suggestions. Speaking frankly, I do find AfD a little adversarial, and there seems to be a default to attempt to "save" articles, particularly place-articles, when the articles themselves are very, very poor. But I need to get better acquainted with GEOLAND etc. Lastly, I see we share an interest in some lesser known Manchester architects. I love the Manchester Reform Club which I used to see almost daily. The one that has always intrigued me is Thomas Hartas. He appears completely unknown/unrecorded. Unless you're aware of something I'm not? KJP1 (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As a card-carrying inclusionist, I loathe AfD and rarely have the energy to participate there, but I can see that it is also an adversarial place for cleaning up low-quality articles where the notability might conceivably be there but no-one has enough energy to improve the article. I am in awe of all the work you and others are doing to clear up this situation. I'm no expert on Manchester architects and actually hadn't even heard of Salomons before yesterday, to my shame; I started an article a while back on Wood's partner, J. Henry Sellers, and I've been intermittently mooching around sources for Wood/Sellers and tripping over sources on other Manchester figures. The book I was using also has long articles on Richard Lane, Emanuel Vincent Harris and John Swarbrick (founder of the Ancient Monuments Society) but nothing on Hartas, sadly. PQ finds article in Independent which just says "Almost nothing is known about Thomas Hartas: it is thought that he was not local and that the law library was the only building of any note that he designed" which isn't very helpful! I suspect if Hartwell et al. couldn't find anything, we mere mortals are doomed to fail... Gorgeous building though! It does seem extremely unlikely that it sprang out of nowhere, but I suppose he must have 'ghosted' uncredited for some practice or other, as Sellers did until he linked up with Wood. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is indeed a gorgeous building, inside and out, and no architect creates that from scratch. He must have done earlier work - but what? And why nothing after? All very frustrating. KJP1 (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this him? Not sure it's an RS though. —Noswall59 (talk) 13:48, 17 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]
    Noswall59 - Bullseye! Indeed it is and that's more than I, or indeed Claire Hartwell, was ever able to find about him. So, he died young'ish, - at Barmouth, was he there for his health? - and his early works were domestic villas in the NW and Midlands. I wonder how he landed the Law Library commission? Fascinating stuff. I shall use that source for the Law Libary article unless, as its finder, you want to do the honours.
    While I have you, can we catch up on the DoB reviewing, principally the Lincolnshire entries where you have made detailed notes. I'm not quite sure how you want to turn these notes into actions, i.e. executing the Merge/Redirect/AfD or whatever your suggested action was? If you have it in hand, and plan to action them at some future stage, that's absolutely fine. Equally, if you'd like a hand doing so, just let me know.
    I think we are making good progress, although it was regrettable that we weren't able to bring DragonofBatley with us. When we're done, you, I, PamD, Rupples, UncleG and Cremastra should celebrate with a drink! I think it would have to be virtual, unfortunately, as I think we are quite geographically disparate. Or we may just have to settle for a barnstar. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    KJP1 - re Hartas, I'm glad that's actually him in the source and not a case of "look at what you could have won"! Please go ahead and add to the article. I'd never heard of him, but I saw your comment and was intrigued by the unusual surname, did some digging and found that webpage.
    I've been pretty busy this last week so have only just been catching up with the news that DoB is now indef blocked. I'm not sure it's a surprise, but a shame it had to end that way. I am happy to do the merging/redirecting of Lincolnshire articles from the table as identified, though I'm not going to "claim" them -- anyone's welcome to join in (I don't want to hold up efforts). I will probably be editing sporadically over the coming weeks, so I'll start with the low-hanging fruit and then, as and when I have time, will attempt to improve those I think are worth keeping. Regarding redirecting, can this be done BOLDly or does it require AfD/PROD in each instance? —Noswall59 (talk) 11:15, 18 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]
    Noswall59 - That's terrific, thanks very much indeed. And no rush, of course. I shall pick up some of them, as I do my daily trawl up and down the list. I think our collective view is that "Merge and Redirect" tends to be working out best - and we've been doing it pretty boldly! It may sometimes be necessary to create a suitable home in the "Merge To" page. As an example, User:PamD did this with Great Wyrley#Places of worship, and dropped in a bunch of, not-very notable, churches. Pam or User:Rupples, can't now remember who, found List of electoral wards in Lincolnshire and they exist for many/most counties, which proved to be a great landing point for lots of the non-notable ward articles. Just make sure you're redirecting to the right level of governance; Rupples corrected a batch I misdirected in this way! I think we've only had two reversals, and one of those was where we changed our collective mind. AfD tends to get there eventually, and most of them have ended up with the desired outcomes, but it's a bit of a drain/strain. I started to be a bit more liberal with PROD, but a number of these have been challenged. So, Merge is the favourite, but you will often find there isn't a lot actually worth moving over. All the very best. KJP1 (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Noswall59 I skimmed the list a few days ago and think there were at least a couple of listed churches that might be worth saving, but I haven't checked whether the existing article is plausible or not. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KJP1&oldid=1276414765"