User talk:BarretB

Welcome to my talk page. Please adhere to the talk page guidelines and particularly the following: Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page. Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end. Please specify a descriptive subject or headline for a new topic and separate subtopics by ===heading=== lines, if needed. Please indent your posts with one more ":" than what you are replying to, i.e. begin with ":" if replying to an existing topic and "::" if replying to a reply. I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply. ⇒ Start a new Talk topic.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Hi Barret, Hope you had a good Xmas and New Year. It's good to see you back and editing regularly. Incase you aren't watching, there has been some interest in the Geology of Dorset article. It would be good if you wanted to get involved but if you have other things to do, that's okay too. All the best--Ykraps (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ykraps, I hope you're well. I hadn't noticed the discussion but after reading through it seems it is drawing to a conclusion and I don't think there's anything worthwhile that I could contribute. Have you any plans to push another Dorset article up to GA and beyond? Barret (talk) 11:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still deciding what my next project should be. I thought I might try to take Dorset to FA status. I've been looking at the criteria and I can't see that it needs much doing. Might it be worth nominating it to see? Failing that, I might have a crack at taking either Bournemouth or Dorchester to GA.--Ykraps (talk) 14:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're confident its ready then go for it but I recommend putting the article up for another peer review first where it would hopefully get some comments and suggestions from editors experienced with the FAC process. Do you think the infobox needs to include Bournemouth and Poole UAs? I've noticed that most of the info given is only for DCC - for example the ISO 3166-2, ONS and NUTS codes, admin HQ, politics etc. Barret (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty, I hadn't paid much attention to the infobox. My personal feeling is that it should include Bournemouth and Poole as the focus of the article has shifted from the administrative district to include the county as a whole but having said that, I notice Somerset haven't bothered to include their UAs. My main worry is that Dorset doesn't include a toponymy section and so might be marked down under criterion 1b. I will put Dorset up for peer review as you suggest but they are quite busy (as always)--Ykraps (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but I've now looked through the other English county articles and only one (Buckinghamshire, a former FA) includes some details of the UA in the infobox. I've made a test edit here to see what the infobox would look like with Poole and B'mth. Is it an improvement or does it add confusion? The logos for the two borough councils can be uploaded later. Do you think the infobox should contain the flag? I don't think Poole or Bournemouth councils ever endorsed it. There's a couple of decent sources on Google books which might help with toponymy [1] [2] (look for Dorset and Dorchester) + I'll try to get my hands on a copy of Cullingford's book to see if that has anything. Barret (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Barrett, just on my way out. Will get back to you shortly.--Ykraps (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was 'afeard' the infobox might be a bit crowded with the extra info but in actual fact it doesn't look bad at all. Mind you it might look different when there are three logos...... I still think the UAs should be included, just because other county articles don't bother, it doesn't mean we can't raise the bar. I'd like to keep the flag too. Bmth and Poole might not have endorsed it but it is becoming more recognised now. From memory, I don't think Cullingford had anything in his book but I'll try to get to the library sometime this week.--Ykraps (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Barret. Myself and another editor disagree over which is the better image of the above subject matter, with respect to the Gold Hill article itself and also the Shaftesbury article. The recent history of both those articles reveals the images involved; if you wish to express an opinion, you may do so at my talk page, where the other editor has opened a dialogue. Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input Barret, especially for creating the category and linking it to the article; this produces a nice solution where all relevant images can easily be accessed, even if they're not directly on the article page. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for reverting the recent mammoth/elephant change at the above article! As you may have noticed, that's the second time "mammoth" had been replaced with "elephant"; I reverted it the first time, but thought I'd wait a while on this one, to avoid getting involved in an edit war - so thanks for saving me from having to revert again! I wonder if the IP editor has special knowledge which the source wasn't privy to (or was ignorant of), or whether it's just a strange axe they have to grind concerning mammoths and elephants? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed the first edit. They don't appear to be using a static IP address so he or she is unlikely to respond to any messages. If it was a genuine good faith edit we have to hope they query why the edit was reverted and start to communicate. If they make this edit again without an edit summary or a source I suggest we revert and add a hidden note to the article. Barret (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barret, We'd like your opinion on these two articles. There is a discussion my talk page.--Ykraps (talk) 10:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barret. I notice you've just added a welcome to a new editor at Merley; I think it's a better welcome template than the one I added to the talk page of the IP who recently edited Weymouth and Isle of Portland, and was wondering which template you'd used? Also, is it normal practise to welcome an IP with a template, as I did (I haven't made a 'formal' welcome before)? Thanks, PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It was Template:Welcomeg (added with Twinkle). There's a long list of welcome templates at Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates. I don't often add welcome templates to IPs - usually only if they're frequent editors and it doesn't appear to be a shared address. Barret (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I'll follow your example regarding IPs, seeing as so many of them aren't anchored to the same address consistently. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shows what I know!‎ Fancy chipping in?--Ykraps (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll help where I can. It's great to have such a thorough review but it comes to a bit of a disheartening and abrupt end! It seems there are some issues with Cullingford in the history section. I think his book says the first visitors were Palaeolithic hunters, I don't remember if it claimed San Salvador was the flagship, and I think the D-day sentence is just missing "...in Dorset" at the end (I don't think Cullingford or either of us believes Dorset was the major embarkation point for the landings). I used Cullingford to rewrite the history section last June or July - I don't know if its of any use but the incomplete draft is now in my userspace (User:BarretB/Sandbox). I don't agree that the sourcing issues are as widespread as he suggests but I'll have a closer look. Barret (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still have a copy of Cullingford's book and have found a second source to support Palaeolithic visitors and Mesolithic settlers (big difference) so I'll be adding that later. I don't think there's a problem with the references either but in any event, I'm confident we can find additional sources if required.--Ykraps (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's your opinion on "slighting". I'm not convinced it should be removed. The featured article Castle contains the word but it is linked to the slighting article. Shall we do the same? Barret (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chambers (11th Edition) also says it is archaic and (unbelievably) Collins (3rd Edition) omits it altogether. Having said all that, when used in this context, it appears to be the word favoured by historians. I think it should stay for the time being (linked as you suggest) and re-evaluate if it comes up when we nominate for FA.--Ykraps (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think slighting is more precise (and more accurate with respect to Corfe), as it need not necessarily mean total destruction (unlike the alternatives "razing" or, to a lesser extent, "demolition", as suggested by User:Spinningspark). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PCW, you are welcome to join in too. I announced the peer review on the Dorset project page in the hope that other editors might do just that. Major changes to the article will need to be discussed of course so is it best to discuss these on the talk page if more editors get involved?--Ykraps (talk) 08:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barret, as I'm sure you're aware, we have been picked up on inconsistent formatting of conversions. Do you have any preference as to which format we should use? My feeling is we should go for the Km/Miles (using a forward slash) simply because it doesn't look such a mess if it needs to be bracketed. I do not consider Km/Miles and (Km/Miles) to be different formats, to me the brackets merely denote that the figures are not part of the sentence. Secondly do you know how to do this or can you point me to somewhere where I can find out? I have been trying to add |disp=/ but this doesn't work at all.--Ykraps (talk) 08:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a strong preference but I usually use the convert template with the converted figure in brackets which seems to be the standard method on most articles. It looks like slashes were removed from the template documentation [3] and a subsequent discussion [4] didn't reach a consensus for their return. MOS:SLASH also advises that they should be avoided. Do you still agree that the infobox should be modified to include the UAs or should we raise the issue on the article's talk page first? Barret (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm happy to go with your suggestion and it does seem to be the one favoured by Somerset. However, taking the geography section as an example, this will mean that -

• Lewesdon Hill (279 metres / 915 feet) and Pilsdon Pen (277 metres / 909 feet).
• the longest horizontal drill (8 km/5 mi, ending underneath Bournemouth pier).
• There is also a World Heritage Site (114 km/71 mi),
• two Heritage Coasts (92 km/57 mi)
• and Sites of Special Scientific interest (199.45 km2/49,285 acres).

will have double bracketting, and although there is nothing wrong with that per se, it does look a bit messy; particularly in regards to the last three, which appear in the same sentence. I propose therefore that it is rewritten to remove the need for brackets, so for example, "Lewesdon Hill (279 metres / 915 feet) and Pilsdon Pen (277 metres / 909 feet)", becomes, "Lewesdon Hill at 279 metres (915 feet) and Pilsdon Pen at 277 metres (909 feet)". Thoughts?

Yes, I still think the info box should include the UAs but as there are now more than two of us interested in the article, it seems polite to open a discussion on the talk page.--Ykraps (talk) 08:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spinningspark has also pointed out the inconsistent use of commas as number delimiters. I'm old school so I always use commas but I believe the modern trend is to omit them; thus 1,000 becomes 1000 and 100,000 becomes 100 000 (the pedant in me obliges me to point out that this is inconsistent use of spaces as number delimiters!) Do you have a preference here?--Ykraps (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Butting in...) I think I have a slight preference for not using commas, though I don't think it really matters; I think Spinningspark is interested in consistency rather than which form is used, as at the moment some figures have commas and some don't. A thought on conversions: I agree that the form chosen (with the alternative figure in brackets) is the better option, however I would be careful to avoid results where the smaller unit is given to a greater degree of accuracy than the larger one, as really it should be the other way round (if at all). Hence at the moment, although stating that Pilsdon Pen's height is 277 metres (908.8 ft) is perhaps strictly accurate (though I question that, seeing as in imperial days the figure given was always 909 ft), it doesn't make sense for the height in feet (the smaller unit) to be stated more precisely than the one in metres. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Just having a bit of fun. :) I too favoured the more modern approach of using spaces until I realised the comparative amounts of work involved, so I have settled on commas, but feel free to change if you feel strongly about it. I note what you say about the conversions and will look to see if there is any precedent. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 11:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The manual of style [5] recommends the use of commas as delimiters so I've always used them. To round the figures for the conversions you just need to remove the unnecssary "|1" parameter from the template. For example Pilsden Pen's height is currently displayed using {{convert|277|m|ft|1|abbr=on}} but if it's trimmed to {{convert|277|m|abbr=on}} ("|ft" can also be removed) it displays 277 m (909 ft). Barret (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barret, Do you have any experience of using Webcite? I have read the instructions here [[6]] and if I am understanding them correctly, I simply fill in and submit the form (including my own, personal email address), and they send me a retrieval address code. Seems simple enough, but when I use the Wikipedia Cite Web Template, do I insert the code where I would normally put the URL address, or create another parameter? Also, will every single web cited require archiving and will it be obvious if they have already been archived?--Ykraps (talk) 10:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No not much experience. I submitted one of the sources from the article for archiving a couple of weeks ago but I didn't recieve an email back. I've recovered a few dead links with webcite using this form [7] but I prefer to use wayback [8]. I don't think it's necessary to archive every link but the council website links seem to go dead quite often so it might be handy to archive them. To add an archived url to the citation add |archiveurl= |archivedate= |deadurl= to the cite web template. Template:Cite web has instructions in the optional parameters section. (There are some examples of archived links in the article - references 130, 219 and 226) All the dead links in the article have been replaced or updated apart from FN 48 "Dorset Census Information Leaflet" [9] which has connection issues. Do you know of any sources that it can be replaced with or could it be removed? It's used twice in the article and both times it is accompanied by another source. Barret (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Draper talks about a decline in farming in Dorset so I have added a reference to show that this is nationwide. Draper also talks about how mechanisation has contributed to the decline so I have used this to support the second statement. I am quite busy at the moment but will start archiving soon.--Ykraps (talk) 11:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've archived a couple of pages from Dorset For You, using Webcite. It was very quick, I received an email the following day. I think I've cited them correctly but if you get a moment, I'd be happy for you to check. The BBC seems to have a policy of not removing information unless it becomes so out of date, it is detrimental (see here [[10]]), so it is probably unnecessary to archive BBC sites.--Ykraps (talk) 10:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the BBC rarely removes old articles or shifts them around to different urls and most of the other reliable news sources are also usually pretty good. The archived links look good. Perhaps if the original links are still working the deadurl parameter should to be set to "no" but I don't think its essential. Barret (talk) 17:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what that does. Okay, I'll do that.--Ykraps (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barret, I am coming to the end with this review but I have yet to address Spinning Spark's fourth comment regarding the culture section: "Of the 229 that are Grade I listed, 174 are churches or places of worship,[159]" It takes some WP:SYNTH of FN.159 to extract this fact. Also FN.159 appears to be the work of a single individual, and has no official status so its qualfication as WP:RS is questionable.

I agree that it takes quite a bit of counting to verify these facts but I don't think WP:SYNTH is relevant, which seems to be more about putting two references together to support a statement that might not be true. I agree that the source might not qualify as a WP:RS but using English Heritage or Dorset For You is not possible as these two sites set the information out on several documents so making matters worse. I am almost at the point of deleting the information. Any suggestions?--Ykraps (talk) 08:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about WP:SYNTH but the reliability of that source is questionable as it appears to be self-published. Anyway the source might be incorrect - a search at English Heritage [11] brings up 255 Grade I buildings in Dorset (CC area), 8 in Poole and 3 in Bournemouth. Unfortunately I don't think there's a way to produce a url link to these results. One way to fix this problem could be to cut out the start of that sentence, replace it with the end of the first, and pad out the middle with more examples of unique listed buildings in the county - for example: Dorset contains 190 Conservation Areas, more than 1,500 Scheduled Ancient Monuments and over 30 registered parks and gardens. Some 12,850 of its buildings are listed, including <more examples here> ...Christchurch Priory, the longest church in England, and St Edwold's, one of the smallest churches. Barret (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that sounds like a good idea. Is there anything particularly interesting or important you think should be included?--Ykraps (talk) 08:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a few of my favourites but feel free to add your own, or even delete some of mine. What do you think the next step should be? I had half a mind to invite Spinningspark back to take another look. I think I have addressed most of his concerns although I didn't always agree and have left some questions, which he has so far failed to answer. Or we could ask for another review from someone else, or go straight to FAN.--Ykraps (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Regarding listed buildings): I think it only makes sense to list a few, otherwise the reader's attention might wander. If possible, I'd be inclined to find examples which are superlatives of their type (such as Christchurch Priory being the longest church in England). The only one I can think of at the moment is Woodsford Castle, which according to a West Dorset District Council tourist guide dating from the early 1980s, possesses the largest thatched roof of any occupied house in England - though that's perhaps not sufficiently noteworthy as a feature. Of the others which have already been added, Athelhampton and Corfe are obviously worthy of note, and similar cases could be made for including Forde Abbey and Sherborne Abbey perhaps? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PCW, thanks for your suggestions. I have included Forde Abbey but couldn't find a RS for Sherbourne as it is listed under a different name [[12]]. I'll keep looking though. BTW, good work with the geography and geology of Dorset articles!--Ykraps (talk) 08:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sherborne Abbey was just a suggestion, and it's not imperative that it's included (especially as you've added Forde). Thanks for your appreciation regarding the geography/geology articles. The geology article still needs tackling, as much of what it currently contains is better suited to the geography article, and it needs to be kept more strictly geological. The geography article itself is short of citations at the moment; I decided it was preferable to create a basic structure first, with the plan of then fleshing it out, rather than trying to assemble a lot of citations from scratch, which might have ended up reading like a list. Work to be done! Addressing your question above regarding what to do next with Dorset, I think I'd prefer requesting a second review, partially because that might pick up any outstanding or unnoticed issues before going to FAN, and partially because I'd really like to change bits of the geography section before going to FAN, as some of it is inaccurate or outdated. Finally, apologies for repeatedly butting in on Barret's talk page! PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Thread moved to PCW talk page.)--Ykraps (talk) 11:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PCW, no need for apologies - the more the merrier. Ykraps, the only other building I can think of which is a bit different from those already mentioned is the Roman town house in Dorchester which is described as the "only Roman town house visible in Britain" [13]. The toughest part of the FA criteria is probably 1(a) so I think it would be a good idea to get the prose thoroughly checked before nominating. The essays at the bottom of WP:WIAFA are helpful and there's some useful links here. If you wish, you could make a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests (there seems to be a bit of a backlog though), or you could request another peer review focusing on the prose rather than the sources. There's also a list of editors at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers who can be contacted for review requests. Barret (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Roman remains at Colliton Park were on my list too. I didn't want to call it a house though, in case any readers have seen it :). As prose isn't one of my strongest points, I think it might be a good idea to request a copy edit as you suggest. PCW has raised some concerns about the geography section which need addressing first however (see his talk page).--Ykraps (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[[14]] (pay no attention to the roofs, they are modern and for protection)--Ykraps (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested a copy edit for the Dorset article here.--Ykraps (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barrett, It appears that Dorset had its copyedit. Can you see anything else that needs attention before we go to FA nominations?--Ykraps (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We discussed modifying the infobox to include the unitary authorities. Any more thoughts on this? The draft is still in my userspace [17]. I'd like to make a few small changes to the history section. I'll work on this over the next couple of days in my userspace or offline. Barret (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Poole and Bournemouth are discussed in the article, it seems right to include them in the info box. We should drop the DCC logo as having 3 logos would be too much but I notice Somerset have included their coat of arms so perhaps we should consider doing likewise? I've also noticed you've changed the district map. Does MOS favour one type over another and if so, one wonders why it wasn't picked up at any of the reviews? I like the collapsible list of MPs which should help prevent the box creeping too far into the article.--Ykraps (talk) 07:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the Admin HQ section from the infobox to make it shorter and the motto is gone because that belongs to the county council. Dorset's coat of arms only represents the county council so I don't think it should be added. That style of map seems to be the most commonly used in county infoboxes but the main reason why I used it was because it allowed me to trim the list of labels by removing the neighbouring counties. I got carried away and made more than just a few small changes to the history section. A draft is in my userpace linked above (also a toponymy section) and I've listed some of the modifications below. If you think we should stick with the current version instead then that's no problem.

• 1st pararagh rearranged slightly and removed native oak forest sentence to reduce size.
• 2nd paragraph - removed mention of Roman presence on Isle of Portland and Verne Hill because I didn't think we needed to focus on these above the other Roman settlements in Dorset. Added detail of Sherborne diocese, shire system and the first recorded viking attack on the British Isles. Sacrificed last two sentences to cut down on size.
• Reduced Purbeck Marble detail and added wool trade and ports. Removed mention of deer parks.
• Removed the Armada sentence (8 ships doesn't seem very significant) to free up space for the Civil War.
• Removed details of the wreck Santa Maria de Luce and Walter Raleigh which, although interesting, I don't think are major events in Dorset's history.
• Removed Lyme Regis in the civil war siege to allow more room for details of civil war in general.
• Rewritten world wars paragraph with more detail.

Barret (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any issues with the changes you have made. Much of the cut information is contained in the 'History of' article, although that in itself requires a bit of attention. I'd like to see all the main articles brought up to scratch eventually, at least to the point where they are properly referenced. I am glad you managed to find enough info to construct a toponymy section, and something about the Vikings was also needed. I'm quite happy if you want to transfer your sandbox to the article wholesale. Regards --Ykraps (talk) 07:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barret, Are you done? Shall we nominate?--Ykraps (talk) 09:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go through the entire article and make sure there are no MoS issues we've missed. I'll let you know when I'm done. I've looked through the images and I fear we could have problems with the flag and the geology map. The flag license claims it has been released into public domain by its creators, Stephen Coombs and Dave White, but there doesn't appear to be any evidence of that. I'll contact User:White43 who I think is one of the creators to see if he can help. The geology map's source ("based on 1904 map") is too vague. Unfortunately it was made by someone who hasn't edited for over 2 years. I think we'll have to either find sources and make a new one or replace it with an image (this for example [18]). Barret (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just found this page on the flag institute website which states that they only accept flags in the public domain so the flag can probably be left as it is. Barret (talk) 17:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's good news about the flag. Similar maps appear on the pages of Ensom's book, Discover Dorset - Geology, and Chaffey's, The Dorset Landscape. Can we not just reference the map with either of these two books? After all, if I wanted to reference a particular sentence, any source would do. Failing that, I could probably do a passable map myself but not having access to a scanner, I would have great difficulty getting it uploaded and this could stall the nomination process considerably.--Ykraps (talk) 09:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you could give that a try. I don't think it'll be a problem with but we'll find out at FAC if it is. Barret (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the existing image because it has rivers and hills marked but we could use this if needs be.--Ykraps (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After a bit of searching I think I've found the source for the existing map. It's now on the description page [19]. Barret (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, I tried a search for 1904 geology books and found nothing. You previously mentioned problems with MOS, did you find anything?--Ykraps (talk) 07:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working on it. It's more of a general copy edit including checks for mos consistency. Will hopefully be done by the end of the weekend. Barret (talk) 21:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a start but I'm not quite done yet (I blame the weather). The lead also needs a bit of work. Barret (talk) 23:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Make the most of it, I don't expect it will last! If there's anything you think I can help with, let me know. All the best--Ykraps (talk) 07:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some modifications to the lead section in this draft [20]. Any objections or suggestions? I usually find the lead a bit of a struggle. Something else which I planned to do but haven't had time is check the sources to make sure there's no copied or closely paraphrased text in the article (this is usually something scrutinized at FAC). Is this something you could assist with if you have time? It needn't be every source - spot-checks would suffice. Barret (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's something I can help with although I can't check the book references until the library opens again. No, I'm not good with the lead either but your changes look okay. The first paragraph defines the topic and the rest summarises the most important points, as per MOS, so I don't really have anything to add.--Ykraps (talk) 09:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked most of the online sources for plagiarism but I have not checked the section on demography as all the information was obtained from tables. I have also made sure that the sources checked support the statements made. I would like to look at a couple of books, in particular Cullingford, I will keep you updated here. I am not sure about the validity of fn.226, might this [[21]] be better? --Ykraps (talk) 09:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I have just checked fn.226 again and before opening it, windows explorer does tell you the source.--Ykraps (talk) 09:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking those. I got my hands on a copy of Cullingford's book today so I don't mind looking up those footnotes. I've noticed the article gives details of Christchurch and Bournemouth becoming part of Dorset in both the settlements and politics sections. Shall we leave it or cut it from the settlement section? Barret (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barret. Sorry I have not been getting back to you promptly but I have been working away a lot and so it has been difficult. If you have a copy of Cullingford, by all means do that. It will save me a trip to the library which is problematic at the moment for the reason given above. I still have a copy of Chaffey and I checked those references this morning. I noticed the multiple references to boundary changes too (it is also in the lead) and thought it a bit excessive. I would suggest cutting it from the settlement section where it is least relevant.--Ykraps (talk) 10:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barret, I see you have checked the Cullingford references and been left wanting. I had a quick look online but couldn't find anything to support that particular statement although this [[22]] contains some interesting information (page 7). I will try to get to the library sometime this weekend. Hopefully they still have a copy of Putman's book, which is pretty comprehensive, otherwise we can probably lose that sentence without too much disruption. Regards --Ykraps (talk) 07:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there wasn't a copy of Putman's book available so I have reluctantly deleted the sentence. Do you think there is room for a picture in the history section? Maiden Castle perhaps?--Ykraps (talk) 09:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can find at the library -- there's a book called Prehistoric Dorset by John Gale which might have something useful. On my screen it looks like there's room for a picture halfway down on the left in that section. Are there any good images of Maiden Castle available? Barret (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm. Nothing really striking. Maiden Castle was just a suggestion, it could be Corfe Castle or anything else as long as its mentioned in the section.--Ykraps (talk) 06:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions the "administrative county" in a couple of places but this term appears to be innacurate and obsolete so I was considering replacing it with "non-metropolitan county". Am I right in thinking that the unitary authorities are completely separate from the non-metropolitan county rather than administratively independent districts of the non-metropolitan county? And do you think the flag needs an inline citation in the infobox? I'm tempted to remove it. I know the last peer review said something about it, but usually things in the infobox don't require a source if they are sourced elsewhere in the article. Barret (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember why or how the term came to be used in the article. I think it was historic and we just kept using it. Somerset uses 'non-metropolitan' as does Unitary Authority so it seems logical to follow suit. No, I don't think the infobox needs a citation and references to the flag in the article are referenced. If it's called for at FAN we can easily put it back.--Ykraps (talk) 06:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How disappointing, I can't find anything outstanding. These are just suggestions from an uninspiring, overexposed, underexposed, out of focus lot. Please do have a look and tell me what you think.--Ykraps (talk) 07:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

<

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

>

One of the Corfe Castle images would be my choice. I've had a look on geograph and flickr and could only find this [23] which isn't particularly outstanding either. Barret (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it has to be Corfe. Because there isn't anything to scale it with, the true majesty of Maiden Castle is lost in the photographs. I like the one you've found and would like to see how it sits in the article. Unfortunately I haven't any experience of uploading from flickr. There is a link when you click the share button, do you paste this into the Commons' Special Upload template?--Ykraps (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded the image to the commons (File:Corfe Castle3.jpg). I used the Flinfo tool which helps to determine if the license is compatible with the commons and generates prefilled information template, and then downloaded and uploaded the image. Barret (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and thanks for the Flinfo tool tip. I will play around with that later. I have added the image but feel free to reposition, re-size, alter caption or remove altogether if you don't like it. Regards --Ykraps (talk) 19:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had another unsuccessful trip to the library yesterday where I was unable to get hold of Wightman or Blamire. It is the references to these books which worry me the most as they were added by someone else. I remember having to alter quite a lot when I first got hold of Cullingford's book!--Ykraps (talk) 09:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Corfe Castle image overlaps into the settlements section on my screen. Is it ok to move it higher up? Luckily a preview of Blamire's book is available on Google books and everything seems in order with that source. I think Wightman was added by PaleCloudedWhite. Barret (talk) 13:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised the image so it sits alongside the paragraph that refers to it but by all means position it as you see fit. I never thought to look online for any of the book references. Perhaps I'll search later for Draper's book which has also gone missing. I made a couple of small changes to the geography section after getting hold of Wright. I also managed to get Putman's book so I might look for a short sentence to add although I don't know that it is necessarily required. I'll leave a message for PCW. If he still has the book he might be willing to have a second look at it. Do you think we have much more to do? --Ykraps (talk) 07:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Does it matter that some of the image captions have full stops at the end and others don't?

The captions don't need full stops unless they are complete sentences so I've modified a couple. I can't think of anything else the article needs. I'd be surprised if my contributions to the prose reached the standards of FA criteria 1a but if you're ready to take the article to FAC I'll help where I can. Barret (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that your prose isn't up to it and think we should take the plunge into FAN's hitherto unknown waters. It will be an exciting and valuable experience, if nothing else. I have found a source that appears to support the removed sentence regarding Bronze age settlement along the river valleys [[24]] (p.21) but unless you feel otherwise, I don't think I'll bother re-inserting it. PCW checked the references to Wightman's book and although I couldn't find an online version of Draper's book, I'm confident they're okay.--Ykraps (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take cover! --Ykraps (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This should be interesting! I'm not bothered about that sentence either. I can't see the article on the main FAC page yet. Did you forget to carry out step 5 of the nomination procedure? Barret (talk) 18:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've done it :-) Barret (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly what I did. Thanks--Ykraps (talk) 21:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up on my first wiki contribution. I will re-post with a link to the reliable source. I left it out originally, as I couldn't find the right wiki code for linking a ref quickly. Thanks, DeLear2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeLear2012 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Thanks for providing the sources. Barret (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barret. They are calling for a source at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dorset/archive1. I have searched online but can't find anything. Any ideas? Also, I don't understand what they are suggesting re fn.19 and fn.123. I have fixed the other 3 problems, I think, but now I'm late for work! Later--Ykraps (talk) 07:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps FN 123 wasn't the one she meant. The only thing I can think it might be is the difference between the page format for books and the online PDFs (with and without brackets) which can be fixed with the "nopp=y" parameter. I had a feeling someone would bring up the Dorsetshire sentence. A similar sentence in the Somerset article doesn't have a source so I thought it might be something that wouldn't be challenged and therefore not require a citation (per WP:MINREF). Obviously the sentence is correct but I've not yet been able to find a source which is frustrating. Barret (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think many people in England would consider it contentious but the reviewer appears to be Canadian. I will try to put a case for keeping the sentence otherwise we may have to lose it. I will also ask for clarification on the footnote issue. --Ykraps (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am disappointed that after the initial comments, there has been no interest in the Dorset article. I suspect, there are too many articles and not enough reviewers. Any ideas how to re-kindle interest? I don't want to appear pushy but my, perhaps limited, experience with PR, RFF and GAN, is that once the article has been passed over or commented on, it is rare that anyone comes back to it. Given that reviewers tend to pick the articles they are most comfortable with, could we ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography if they know anyone who is familiar enough with FA criteria and would be interested in doing the honours? My thoughts, but very interested in hearing yours. Regards --Ykraps (talk) 07:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep it's been disappointing to watch Dorset slip down the FAC list and receive little interest but there's still a few weeks left to attract reviewers before it's closed and archived. I think letting people know about Dorset's nomination at WT:UKGEO is the best option and I don't think it would be unreasonable to contact Nikkimaria to remind her you've responded to her comments. Barret (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have left messages on both talk pages. Now all we have to do is wait, I suppose.--Ykraps (talk) 08:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you are following events at FAC anyway but the question of historic boundaries has been raised. I can probably get enough reliable sources to add,

"In 1997 the borough counties of Poole and Bournemouth were granted Local Authority status although they were still regarded as part of the ceremonial county. This was not the only time Dorset boundaries had been moved however, in 1974, following the 1972 Local Government Act, Christchurch and Bournemouth were transferred to Dorset from Hampshire; in 1896 the Somerset parishes of Goathill, Poynington, Sandford Orcas and Trent were added in exchange for Wambrook while Chardstock was ceded to Devon, and in 1844, Dorset gained Thorncombe and Holwell from the Diocese of Salisbury and the county of Somerset respectively.”

Which is quite a long and awkward sentence. Any ideas about how to make it more concise?--Ykraps (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holwell is unusual amongst those examples because it isn't situated next to the county boundary - it was an enclave of Somerset wholly surrounded by Dorset, arising because the owner of the manor had their main residence in Somerset, and chose to pay their taxes there.

A couple of other points have also sprung to mind regarding the whole FAC process:

1) I think the geology map - which I think has been discussed before, albeit not in respect of this matter - has some errors, in particular its use of the label "Oolitic" to describe some of the rocks ("Oolitic clay" etc.). As far as I am aware, "Oolitic" describes a type of rock structure composed of small beaded grains, whereas the geology map seems to use it in the sense of a geologic time period.

2) Someone at FAC has raised the question of land ownership. Wightman (in Portrait of Dorset) asserts several times his belief that large landowning families historically helped preserve much of the coast of Dorset from development, primarily as a result of their own concerns of course, but he argues that the results have benefitted the whole county. Although this is very much Wightman's own opinion, it does present an interesting consideration on the issue. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

( P.S. I've asked at the Geology talk page for comments about the map.) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 11:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PCW. I wasn't really suggesting all that went in the article, I was just saying what I could reference with reliable sources. I kind of agree with Rod that 1896 boundary change should be mentioned, and possibly the 1844 change too, but how much to say and where to put it, is giving me a bit of a headache. Yes, oolite is a rock composed of ooliths, small spheres of calcium carbonate formed around a grain of sand or piece of shell (he's read one book on geology, and now he thinks he's an expert! You're no doubt thinking.) Yes, landowners have made a contribution to the upkeep of the coast, and in particular rights of way. They seem reluctant to relinquish that responsibility though.[[25]] :) Best--Ykraps (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The comments so far posted at the Geology talk page about the geology map, suggest that the terms used are outdated. Do you know if it's going to be difficult to change or find a different map? (i.e. is that something you've tried to do before, but not had much joy?) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

not much joy, no. I produced the map above using microsoft paint which is pretty limited in what it does. I don't have access to scanner so drawing one is not an option. We could request one here but the chances of it arriving in time is pretty slim.--Ykraps (talk) 22:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your map is more up-to-date than the one currently in the article, although the reference to "Tertiary beds" is outdated of course (oh no, not that again! haha...) I wish I'd noticed the map's terminology before - I only noticed it now because I scrutinised it more in your sandbox. Any decent High Street printer should have a scanner, and they should also be able to assist with map typescript etc., though of course they will charge. How much time do we have? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To construct a map from scratch would take more time than I currently have but the existing map has a licence that allows us to make alterations to it. If we can work out how, we could just change the terms as the rest of it appears okay.--Ykraps (talk) 05:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked another question at the geology talk page, regarding changing the terms used on the map. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware that there had been some 19th century border changes but thought they were minor compared to the 1974 changes and would be better suited to the History of Dorset subarticle. I'm having dificulty trying to find a way of squeezing it in the politics section. Perhaps it could be added as an explanatory note at the end of the "...based largely on the historic county borders." sentence? As for the geology map, I'll wait and see what the outcome is at the geology talk page but if necessary I can attempt to create an updated version of the map using Inkscape. Barret (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had a chance to check the article for the past few days and I've just noticed the addition of the boundary changes to the history section. It seems a bit awkward attached to the end of the section. Barret (talk) 12:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barret, good to have you back. I only added the bit about boundary changes this morning and I agree it does look a bit like an afterthought (which indeed is precisely what it is), but I was having trouble finding somewhere to put it. I think it probably needs to go either in the history or politics section but how to integrate it is troubling me somewhat. Where is the "...based largely on the historic county borders." sentence?--Ykraps (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence is the second in the politics section. It could also be added after the third or perhaps somewhere in the history section. An example of what I was thinking:

Politics

Local government in Dorset consists of a county council (Dorset County Council) and two unitary authorities (Bournemouth Borough Council and the Borough of Poole). Dorset County Council was created by the Local Government Act 1888 to govern the newly created administrative county of Dorset which was based largely on the historic county borders. Dorset became a two-tier non-metropolitan county after a reorganisation of local government in 1974 and its border was extended eastwards to incorporate the former Hampshire towns of Bournemouth and Christchurch.^{[Note 1]}

Footnotes

1. ^ Alterations to Dorset's boundary prior to 1974 and been comparatively minor. In 1844 Axminster, Dalwood and Stockland were transferred to Devon but Dorset gained Thorncombe from Devon and Holwell from Somerset. In 1896 the Somerset villages of Adber, Goathill, Poyntington, Sandford Orcas, Seaborough and Trent were added in exchange for Wambrook while Chardstock and Hawkchurch were ceded to Devon.^[1][2]

Notes

1. ^ http://books.google.com/books?id=Uq0uAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA319
2. ^ http://archive.org/stream/dorsetguil00salmuoft#page/10/mode/2up

Barret (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that's acceptable to everyone, I think that is the best solution. Is it better to the footnotes labelled abc, so they stand out from the sources, do you think?--Ykraps (talk) 07:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the note but couldn't figure out how to change this type of label to a letter. I'll have another look later when I have more time. Have you any plans to change the lead or add more details of religious sites? Barret (talk) 11:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This might not be the correct way but I use this method. ^[a]

a ^{^} Type {{Ref_label|A|a|none}} after the sentence. Then in the footnote section below type '''a''' followed by {{Note_label|A|a|none}} and whatever it is you want to say.

--Ykraps (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am really struggling to find anything to put in a religious section and the guideline isn't giving much guidance. There are some mosques and synagogues in Dorset but aside from the fact they exist, there isn't really anything to say about them. There are lots of churches of course but we can't mention them all, so which ones? I think Rod's mention of services is a mistake as I can't see it in the guidelines. Just as well as a don't think a list of services for each of the 6 districts and both LAs would add much to the article. Also what do you think about updating the figures in the demography section? I've been mulling these things over for a couple of days now and I'm not getting anywhere so if you can provide any inspiration, I'd be grateful. I need to decide what, if anything, to do before working on the lead.--Ykraps (talk) 07:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your response to Rod about the census data and I'm not enthusiastic about adding services either. There are religion sections in the Devon and Cornwall articles that might provide inspiration and Somerset's culture section mentions the C of E diocese that cover the county. I don't think there are any notable examples non-Christian sites of worship but the two synagogues in Bournemouth have articles (Bournemouth Reform Synagogue and Bournemouth Hebrew Congregation) and the 2001 census shows that the town has a larger Jewish population than average. Apart from those already mentioned in the article the only particularly notable churches that I can think of off the top of my head are Sherborne Abbey, St Martin's Wareham (most complete Saxon church in Dorset) and St Candida and Holy Cross, Whitchurch Canonicorum (contains only surviving relics in Britain apart from Edward the Confessor in Westminster Abbey, but it needs an article). Perhaps we could squeeze another paragraph to the culture section for this rather than a new section. Barret (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I'll put something together in a user space for now.--Ykraps (talk) 07:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind but I've adjusted some of your recent additions to the lead. I will try to get to the library tomorrow to find sources for the religion section -- I think Pevsner was enthusiastic about Dorset's churches in his Buildings of England guide so we could take a quote from him. Diocese covering Dorset are Diocese of Salisbury (95% of Dorset [26]) Diocese of Winchester (Christchurch and 60% of Bournemouth) and Diocese of Bath and Wells. Other churches that might deserve a mention: St Nicholas, Moreton (burial place of TE Lawrence and glass windows designed by Laurence Whistler [27]) and St Mary, East Lulworth (the first Catholic church built in England since the Reformation[28]). Do you think the culture section needs a sentence about the Poole speedway team? They aren't mentioned but appear to be one of the few professional sports teams in the county. Barret (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to any of the edits you've made. I've made a start at User:Ykraps/Religion in Dorset. Yes, I was surprised that Poole Pirates weren't mentioned given their successes and that you appear to be a bit of a fan. :)--Ykraps (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've written rather too much, as usual and have let my interest in architecture dominate. Much as I'd liked to have written a balanced and inclusive piece, a county that is 98% Christian, makes this virtually impossible so it seems rather odd to mention a synagogue that isn't even notable. I think some of it is useable though. Would you like to pick out some bits?--Ykraps (talk) 09:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a go at tweaking (or butchering :) ) some bits of your religion section. I have a couple books from the library which will hopefully provide me with inspiration and I'll try and get it done asap as I know time is running out at FAC. Barret (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There's almost enough for an article now.:) How long have we got? No-one appears to have mentioned a time limit.--Ykraps (talk) 11:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any set time limit but once a nomination starts languishing at the bottom of the page it seems the FAC delegates begin to consider promoting or archiving. Although Dorset has attracted several comments it hasn't received any declarations of support yet so it's in danger of being archived unfortunately. Barret (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've nearly completed a section here. I've had to sacrifice some of the latter half of your section to reduce the size but it's still longer than I hoped. Is there anything you would like to change? Barret (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look and did a bit of copyediting whilst I was there - hope no-one minds... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've given it a minor edit too, mostly with regard to the references. I did remove the "two synagogues" bit however, which I thought made the sentence a bit clumsy. Also it seemed odd to mention two synagogues and not the six mosques in Dorset. Just my thoughts though, feel free to disagree.--Ykraps (talk) 07:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your help. My only concern is that the first two sentences might be more suited to the demography section. Apart from that there's just a couple of bits remaining that require a source. Barret (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a source for the miraculous beam sentence but couldn't find one for the other so have had to alter it slightly (see what you think). I agree that the first two sentences would be more at home in the demography section but thought it was necessary to explain why the section was only about Christian sites. I am happy to lose or move it though if you think it better.--Ykraps (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. What are your thoughts on Calisber's suggestion re Dorset (UK Parliament constituency)? The article lacks inline citations and I have had real trouble finding reliable sources. Also, the bit of research I have done suggests that it isn't wholly accurate. And why mention county constituencies and not borough constituencies?--Ykraps (talk) 11:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any problems with your changes. I've altered the opening paragraph - any better? I don't think Dorset (UK Parliament constituency) needs to be included. Its going to be difficult to find sources plus if the county constituency is mentioned the borough ones and the numerous changes between 1832 and 1950 should be added too. If we can find sources it could be added as a footnote. Barret (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another footnote is tempting but it is the sources that are proving to be a problem. This [[29]] seems to be one of the better ones but because the information is collated in years, a lot of references would be needed to support even a short sentence. I like what you've done with the proposed religious sites section. I think we should put it in and then try to re-kindle some interest.--Ykraps (talk) 07:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look for sources - archive.org might have some useful public domian books - but I'm not optimistic. The religious sites section is now in the article. Any suggestions for an image to add? I was hoping to find one of the fan vaulting in Sherborne Abbey but couldn't find anything suitable. Below are a few I've found in the commons but there's nothing exceptional. Barret (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the photos do Whistler's windows justice and the Sherborne abbey pic looks a little out of focus (or maybe I'm out of focus. It is late after all). I like the St John the Baptist's wooden roof and St Wite's shrine is okay too. If your looking for Sherborne's fan vaulting, Flicker has a couple. This one's quite good. [[30]] Or perhaps a picture of the Roman mosaic from Hinton St Mary?--Ykraps (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, I'm not sure whether the mosaic is as relevant to Religious Sites. I think there's room for two images if we so wish. See what you think. I have added St Wite's shrine and interior of St John the Baptist but I'm open to others if you want to make changes. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Do you still want to do a piece on Poole Pirates?

I think just the one image will be enough -- two looks a bit crowded on my screen. I've added a few more images of Sherborne Abbey that I found on Geograph. Do you think any of those are an improvement? I'll add a bit about Poole Pirates -- would you object if I added it in place of the Rugby Union sentence or would you rather it was added separately? Barret (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The second image of Sherborne Abbey is definitely sharper and I like the shot of the ceiling which would probably get my vote. If you think we need to sacrifice something of the culture section then yes, the rugby sentence is the one that should go. In any event, I believe Poole Pirates needs to be mentioned.--21:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Although its a bit bland, I've used the exterior Sherborne Abbey image because I think the resolution of the ceiling image is too low at full size (I'm guessing you meant the first one with the stained glass at the top). Poole Pirates are now added as you've probably noticed. Barret (talk) 21:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barret, just seen your edits, it all looks good to me. Any strategy to stimulate more interest at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dorset/archive1?--Ykraps (talk) 21:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm out of ideas. Maybe drop Casliber a note to see if he's finished with the review? The nomination probably still needs a source spot check and an image review but I don't know how we can attract anyone to carry those out. Barret (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I got up this morning to discover we have some support. Not much but it's a start! I'm still concerned though as I'm away for a week as from tomorrow, and I'm not sure I'll be able to contribute much, if at all. When I nominated, I thought it would be done and dusted by now. I was going to contact User:Senra (has Featured article experience, reviewed Christchurch article), User:Jaguar (carried out Dorset's Good article review), User:Brianboulton (gave Dorset a Peer review) and invite them to vote plus leave messages for all those who have so far left comments. What do you think?--Ykraps (talk) 07:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It would help the FAC process if both of you reviewed some of the other articles languishing on the FAC page. Aa77zz (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, I appreciate you guys are stacked out. I occasionally help out at Peer Review but haven't felt sufficiently knowledgeable to do FAC. I'll have a go soon though. Thanks for your support by the way.--Ykraps (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Aa77zz, and I will look to help out where I can contribute something worthwhile. And thank you for your support. Barret (talk) 13:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those look like a good selection of experienced editors. I don't mind keeping on eye on the nomination while you're away and responding to any comments that might appear. Hopefully we've done enough to gain Rod's support too. Barret (talk) 13:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have left messages for User:Senra, User:Jaguar, User:Brianboulton, User:Rodw and User:Casliber. I don't know when I'll be able to access wp again so I am really pleased you are able to keep an eye on things. I only hope that I have created too much work by soliciting the opinions of the editors above!:) Best of luck--Ykraps (talk) 07:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Borough of Poole logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiProject Dorset Barnstar
		I see you already have this one but it seems the most appropriate. For all your work and help in bringing Dorset back to FA status!Ykraps (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! I thought the nomination was destined to drop off the bottom of the page but luckily there was a flurry of support votes at the end. It only took a complete rewrite, two peer reviews, a GAN and an FAC spread across 18 months to get there -- when will our paychecks arrive in the post? :) Barret (talk)

Paychecks!? Now there's an idea. Do you want to float it at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)? :). I was a bit worried to start with but in the end it wasn't so traumatic, so I think the work we put in over those 18 months must of paid off. I didn't manage to respond to all of Brianboulton's comments (managed to find an unprotected wireless network while I was away) but I suppose we can still continue to improve the article. There's all those statistics to update when the ONS finally release all the data! --Ykraps (talk) 22:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barret, I see you are working on an article in your sandbox. It looks good but I noticed you're lacking some sources. Hilliam, David (2010). The Little Book of Dorset. Stroud, Glos.: The History Press. pp. 23–24. ISBN 978-0-7524-5704-8. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |titlelink1= (help) identifies St Wite as a Breton princess. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks but the sources are under control :) The citation needed tags are just reminders and I ran out of time yesterday before I could replace them. I see you've been busy working on the Bournemouth article. Are you just giving it a much needed clean up or are you hoping to push this one up to GA and beyond as well? Barret (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to take to GA eventually but at the moment I'm just tidying. It seems pointless to do too much when the figures will need to be updated to 2011 census.--Ykraps (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barret. I see you have moved your article on the Church of St Candida and Holy Cross to the mainspace. It looks good and the images are well chosen too. I was on my way out when I rather hurriedly replied to your last post so sorry if I sounded a bit short. Yes, I have plans to take the Bournemouth article to GA and I would welcome your input as always. What I meant to say was, there's little point in writing economy or demography sections until the complete figures from the 2011 census are published but there is plenty to do in the interim so feel free to join in if you so wish. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It needs an image of the nave but I couldn't find anything suitable. I've had a scan through Bournemouth. I think the notable residents section could be removed. A mention of notable authors who resided there could be placed in the history or culture section -- the rest is just trivia. I placed a notable section in the Poole article because UKCITIES recommended it but I don't think any of those people have had any major influence on the town (for example the latest drive-by addition: Enzina Fuschini). Thoughts? I'll have a more thorough read through the Bournemouth article sometime over the next few days. Barret (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was following the guidelines atWikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography/How_to_write_about_settlements#Notable_people but I don't have any objections to removing the notable people section. It does seem to attract some completely non-notable entries [[31]], particularly when written in bullet point form.--Ykraps (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Church of St Candida and Holy Cross, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lancet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Church of St Candida and Holy Cross, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Church of St Candida and Holy Cross in Whitchurch Canonicorum is the only parish church in England to have a shrine containing the relics of a saint? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Church of St Candida and Holy Cross. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barret,

I’ve been looking for information about Bournemouth during WWII but lacking a port or any heavy industry, it doesn’t appear to have had much of a role. As a child however, I remember being told of a structure on the Southbourne cliff top, the purpose of which was to bend radio signals, which were directing German bombers to their targets in Coventry and Birmingham. I can't find any information on this though and I'm beginning to wonder whether it's true. Have you heard this story?--Ykraps (talk) 07:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No I've not heard of that. I had a quick look at a few books in the library and there was only a brief mention in one of something on Hengistbury Head (is that part of Southbourne?) that was used to deflect German radio waves. I don't think much happened in Bournemouth apart from some minor bomb damage and the demolition of the two piers. I've noticed you've used a book by Paul Cave which looks like it was also published by the author - this could be an issue if you want to take this article to GA and beyond (WP:SPS). Barret (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ive found this Wikipedia article which sounds very much like the story I was told, but no mention of Southbourne unfortunately. I would say Hengistbury Head is in Southbourne so it's possible your book is alluding to the same thing. I thought Cave's book might be an issue but as none of it's controversial, I'm pretty sure I can find another source. The second book by Ashley and Ashley doesn't have an ISBN number, do you think that'll be a problem too?--Ykraps (talk) 16:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I forgot to reply to this. The isbn number shouldn't be an issue. I'm not sure if it's much use but you could add the OCLC number as an alternative. The number is 499915894. Barret (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barret,

There was some vandalism to the Bournemouth article today. I think I've removed it all but would appreciate it if you could check it over.

Regards--Ykraps (talk) 17:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ykraps - I saw this thread and thought I'd comment. If, like myself, you haven't been given any extra tools/functions for removing mass vandalism, then I find that the simplest way of dealing with situations like this is simply to save the last version of the page that existed prior to all the vandalism began (provided no genuine edits have got mixed up amongst the vandal ones). That way, you can be sure it's all been removed. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you caught all the vandalism. I was going to make the same suggestion as PCW. The 'manual reverting' section at Help:Reverting has some further details. Barret (talk) 21:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both of you. Fortunately (I think it's a good thing) I don't have a lot of experience with vandalism.--Ykraps (talk) 07:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barret. Help me understand why a building described as "one of Poole's most important landmarks" doesn't merit a mention in the "Landmarks" section of Poole. There's also no reason why it can't be mentioned in 2 places - perhaps we just need to move the landmark quote to the Landmarks section. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Although English Heritage has described it as a landmark, it is only Grade II and I don't think it fits in with the other places and buildings in this section (Grade I and II* listed buildings with historical significance and centres of tourism) which were selected using the UKCITIES guideline. If we include St Mary's then why not the Barclays House offices (described as a 'landmark' here[32]]) St James Church, or the several of the pubs on the High Street (among several described as 'landmarks' in this report by the Borough Council [33])? I don't agree with including these buildings based on their size - it could be argued that buildings such as Parkstone House (a staff accommodation block just to the south of the hospital) which is even taller [34], this concrete water tower [35] or the TV transmitter in Parkstone [36] should also be added. Another issue was the image because there wasn't enough room and it sandwiched the text between the image opposite. Barret (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I've had another go at editing the section on Gordon's time in Gravesend. He's still warmly remembered in the town and I didn't want that to go unremarked

Mh23BrumMh23Brum (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barret, Hope you had a good Christmas and New Year. There is a discussion at Talk:Poole that you might like to give an opinion on. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 08:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Founded date does not seem to refer to when Poole was founded, but instead the date it became a UA. To avoid confusion, maybe there should be a modification. As Ykraps said, there is a conversation on the talk page. Thank You - FranktheTank (talk) 11:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barret, I am on the verge of transferring the contents of my sandbox to the Bournemouth page and deleting the notable residents section which will then be included in the culture section. Do you have any comments or suggestions before I do so?--Ykraps (talk) 10:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It looks good but I have a few suggestions. I would remove the last two paragraphs but this is just my opinion and not part of any Wikipedia policy that I'm aware of. Although notable, these people seem to have only lived in the town for a short period and haven't been influenced or had any major influence on the town. I'm not sure the Festival of Britain, a one-off event held over 60 years ago, needs to be included. If this is cut a little more detail on the BSO history and their former home, the Winter Gardens, could be added. The listed buildings and churches paragraph would be better suited to a landmarks section if you plan to include one in the article. Perhaps the Pier theatre should be included in the second paragraph. Maybe a brief mention of the Bournemouth Food and Drink Festival [37], Arts by the Sea Festival [38] and the Bourne Free festival [39] could be added to the end of the air festival paragraph. Feel free to ignore any of this - I think it could be transferred to the article as it is. Barret (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of the Arts by the Sea nor the Food and Drink festival. I look forward to checking them out next time they're on. I couldn't find what I considered a reliable source for Bourne Free (mostly blogs) but the BBC fits the bill so I will gladly include that too. I kept the Festival of Britain sentence which I'd already downgraded from 'major centre', because the information on festivals was so sparse. Now there's a bit more, I agree it can go. What about the summer long firework displays?[[40]] Are they still going? I can probably find a bit more about the BSO but didn't want to overstate it because it's now more of a PSO. I couldn't make up my mind whether to include the churches in the culture, landmarks or religious sections so I was just waiting to see how the article developed. I think there is enough stuff to warrant a section on each. I'll take another look tonight. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 08:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've transferred the info from my sandbox to the culture section but I will probably move the bit about the grade I churches to the landmarks section (as you suggest) when I start work on it. I appreciate it is somewhat subjective but would welcome your view on whether buildings such as the McCarthy and Stone (Wurlitzer) and the 'Legoland' (used to be Abbey Life) ought to be included. Thanks--Ykraps (talk) 11:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have sources that recognise their architectural qualities then I don't see why not. Otherwise they could be included in the economy section with buildings such as the JP Morgan and Portman House offices. The culture section looks a bit too long. If you'd prefer to keep the notable residents perhaps it would be better if they remained in a separate section along with the famous authors? I'm not sure if the fireworks returned last year - I can't find anything online. Barret (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I ask because both Rawlings and Young and Young cite them as such, along with the Littledown Centre, Chase Manhatten and Eagle Star. Unfortunately they don't say much else about them and although widely recognised in the conurbation, I'm not sure they are notable elsewhere (unlike listed buildings). It's all rather subjective however, as I've already said, and I am in two minds so if I can find anything interesting to say about them, I'll include them and if not, I won't. I'm quite keen to avoid a Notable people section so I've shortened the Culture section by removing the last two paragraphs and moving the piece about churches to Landmarks. Best regards--Ykraps (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Chard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Royal Military Academy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barret, hope you are well. I have updated the Bournemouth economy section with 2011 figures here. I have had to rewrite much of it as there are no up to date sources for what is currently there. I have removed the paragraph regarding Fibrecity, although I might add a short paragraph to the history section later, and the piece about shopping centres. All this has left the section quite short. Is there anything else you think needs to be added?--Ykraps (talk) 12:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ykraps. I think it needs something about the town's night time economy. The link has some statistics that might help [41] (1.8). Also: [42]. I don't think you need to be too strict about sources for the shopping areas. The cut paragraph could be trimmed to something like this "Bournemouth's main shopping area consists of pedestrianised streets and centred around the town square and the town gardens. Other major shopping areas are situated in the districts of Westbourne and Boscombe which both feature Victorian shopping arcades. Situated on the northern edge of the town is the Castlepoint Shopping Centre, a 41-acre retail park with some 40 outlets.[43] It opened in 2003 and is one of the largest shopping centres in the UK.[44]". Barret (talk) 10:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. I have added a couple of paragraphs and will take another look tomorrow.--Ykraps (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this worth mentioning do you think? I don't know how highly these awards are regarded.[[45]] --Ykraps (talk) 08:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. Although the award is backed by Google I've not found much national media coverage. It might be worth adding if you want to make the section longer and are struggling to find anything else to add. Barret (talk) 11:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your doubt only makes my doubt greater so I will probably leave out. Do you think what I've written in my sandbox is of sufficient length?--Ykraps (talk) 01:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good to me. The only other thing I can think of that could expand it is some census details similar to those given on Trafford#Economy and Sale, Greater Manchester#Economy (if the relevant 2011 info is available). However, I don't think it's essential and you could transfer your sandbox to the article if you think it's ready. Barret (talk) 09:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find figures for a similar table to those you have mentioned, I have been deliberately avoiding the ONS whose data for Bournemouth also includes Poole, but I have constructed a table to show employment by sector, which is relevant to the initial paragraph. I don't think there's sufficient room for a table and image, unless I rotate the info to make the table long and thin, and place it centre bottom. Let me know what you're thinking, best regards--Ykraps (talk) 09:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The table is a good solution but I think percentages would allow a better comparison between the different regions. However, I've had a search and not found much apart from this [46] (employee jobs section) which contains data that is now over 5 years old (but the page also contains other more up to date information), and this [47] which I think divides it into too many sectors. Barret (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Converting to percentages shouldn't be too problematic, if I can find a calculator! I assume we are talking about percentage of all industry as opposed to percentage of population? E.G. percentage manufacturing in Bournemouth = 2,000 / (0 + 400 + 2,000 + 2,400 + 22,200 + 4,800 + 18,700 + 22,400 + 3,500) X 100, we can show the sum using hidden text <!-- --> --Ykraps (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, it's only the GVA figures which are combined with Poole. I have found the ONS figures here [[48]] and so have included some information on economic activity, as per Sale and Trafford, in my sandbox. If you think it's okay, I will add to the article. I'm having a bit of trouble getting my links to point directly to the ONS data I'm referencing. I can link to the search results, like above, but not to the table. It's okay when, as above, I can narrow the search to one document but sometimes there are several. Any ideas?--Ykraps (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC) P.S I am also working on a demography section, which the Bournemouth article currently lacks. Any suggestions for that?[reply]

I have a few suggestions but feel free to ignore any you don't agree with. I like the additions but perhaps the table is now a bit overwhelming with both the actual numbers of workers and the percentage. The demography section should mention the substantial increase in population since the 2001 census, the reasons for this, and any projections for further growth (PDF). If any of the statistics are particularly higher or lower than the national or regional average, it should be mentioned. For example Bournemouth has the highest population density in the SW [49], and a high proportion of residents in rented accommodation [50]. This PDF might have some additional useful info. I see you've added a historical population table to the article - would this be better suited to the demography section? I think it would be of more interest to readers than a population by age group and gender table. Also, is it necessary to include the yearly estimates between 2002 and 2010? If you need to link directly to one of the search results try right-clicking on the link, click on "copy link location" and paste this into the reference. Barret (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I remember having the same conversation last year now! My memory is not quite what it used to be. I agree that both tables are overwhelming. Initially I was just going to add the 2011 census figure after 2001 but this gave a prime number (19). I suppose I could find a mid-term estimate for 2012 and have four columns of five? There needs to be some explanation as to why there are figures for Bournemouth's population prior to its existence. The table in my sandbox has a column for the district but I didn't add it to the article because I thought it was too much. I'm considering footnotes as a solution but I'm not sure whether they should go at the end of the article or in the table itself. I'm not precious about any of the tables by the way, I was primariy experimenting with constructing them and adding colours etc. Thanks for your other suggestions and the links, I will make a few changes and get back to you. All the best--Ykraps (talk) 07:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few more facts from the JSNA PDF file you found, which was particularly interesting, and replaced the existing 'Historical population' table. Mid-term estimates for 2012 aren't available until the end of this year so I've omitted 2011 figure which is mentioned in the text and elsewhere in the article. If you think it's essential to have it in the table, there will either have to be some empty rows or some other dates will need to be removed. Let me know what you think is best. I have found a different source (Vision of Britain) which overcomes the problem of shifting boundaries and thus saves having a lot of complicated footnotes but again I welcome your opinion. If you think it's okay and don't have any more suggestions, I will transfer to the article. All the Best--Ykraps (talk) 07:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think its essential to have population figures in the table past 2001 but if you disagree and don't want an odd number of columns you could use the same type of table in the Poole demography section. Vision of Britain is probably the best source to use but there are sometimes discrepancies between their figures and the official ONS figures for some odd reason. I've noticed a few sentences beginning with numbers -- the manual of style recommends these are spelled out or rearranged within the sentence (WP:NUMERAL). Other than that I think its ready to be transferred. Barret (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting my errors, I'm on it now. There may be one or two that crept in towards the end of one of my all-night edit-binges (I expanded the article by four times in ten days) - is there a tool for checking over (c) issues in the article? Hillbillyholiday ^talk 17:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You said there were other instances in the text where you'd spotted copyright issues. Please could you point them out to me, as the article has many varied references? Hillbillyholiday ^talk 22:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes no problem. There's no tool to check as far as I know. I don't have access to any of the books used--these need checked if there's a chance any text has been copied. Other examples I found from the online sources:

• Article "stretching from the Late Upper Palaeolithic through to the Roman settlement of Britain".
• Source FN 10: "stretching from the Late Upper Palaeolithic through to the Roman settlement of Britain"

• Article: "Pollen analysis of peat from the Solent bed suggest the headland was lightly wooded at this time, free of dense undergrowth, making it a good home for deer and other game".
• Source FN 16 (page 36): "Pollen analysis of peat from the Solent bed suggest the headland was lightly wooded, free of dense undergrowth, and a likely home for deer and other game"

• Article: "These finds can be closely paralleled with Wessex culture burials, particularly those of the Wilsford and Dorset Ridgeway series".
• Source FN 17: "...can be closely paralled with the `Wessex Culture' burials, particularly those of the Wilsford and Dorset Ridgeway series."

• Article: "Work is currently proceeding on an extension to the thatched barn, which is being made in a way that will minimize energy costs and its impact on the environment".
• Source FN 46: "Work has begun on an extension to the thatched barn... which is being built to minimise energy bills as well as its impact on the environment."

• Article: "It is being funded with £300,000 from developer contributions, £432,000 from the Heritage Lottery Fund and £300,000 from landfill tax".
• Source FN 46: "...is being funded with £300,000 from developer contributions, £432,000 from the Heritage Lottery Fund and £300,000 from landfill tax."

• Article: "...an exhibition area for archaeology, ecology and geology celebrating 14,000 years of Bournemouth’s prehistory".
• Source FN 47: "...exhibition area for archaeology, ecology and geology celebrating 14,000 years of Bournemouth’s prehistory"

• Article: "The public will have the chance to see and handle some of the archaeological finds unearthed at Hengistbury Head in the last 100 years and the centre will also enable visitors to interact with knowledgeable staff and... become actively involved as volunteers in the running of the centre and the nature reserve."
• Source FN 47: "...the public the opportunity to see and handle some of the archaeological collections unearthed at Hengistbury Head over the past 100 years. The centre will also allow visitors to interact with knowledgeable staff and become involved as Heritage Volunteers in the running of the centre and the nature reserve."

• Article: "As well as solar panels... the energy-saving features will include a green roof..."
• Source FN 46: "As well as the solar panels, the energy-saving features include a green roof "

Barret (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey, I have been rather slack. I've altered each of the sentences pointed out and will try and be more carfeul in the future. Thanks for the heads up. Hillbillyholiday ^talk 22:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gonville Bromhead, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Zululand and Zulu (film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Highcliffe Carnival (it's proper name being Highcliffe Charity Carnival) is a non-profit organisation that has been supporting local charities and worthy causes since 1992. It is run voluntarily by members of the community of Highcliffe. Please clarify reason for removal of link. Thank you.HighcliffeCarnival (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Wikpedia is an encyclopedia -- it is not a platform for promoting a website (even if it belongs to a charitable organisation). Very few external links are permitted which prevents articles from being spammed with links to businesses/charities/fansites, etc. Wikipedia:External links and the block notice on your talk page should give you more information. Barret (talk) 08:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BarretB, I noticed your edits on the Weymouth article. I had previously asked the unregistered IP address for some references, to no avail. Seems like self -advertising? Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes probably a drive-by edit made by someone looking to promote the sports team they are affiliated with. I searched Google for some indication of notability but they appear to be amateur teams organised by volunteers. Barret (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barret, hope you are well. I have rewritten the Bournemouth transport section in my sandbox,and welcome any comments and suggestions you may have. I've noticed you are inclined to remove the sub-headings in this section. Is that a personal preference or is there a guideline somewhere? I'm neutral so if you think it's best without, I will remove them. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this section to the article but I'm still happy to hear your thoughts. I notice you're not editing much at the moment, I hope all is okay with you. If you're kicking about wondering what to do, then I'd be pleased to have you're help with the Bournemouth article, which I hope to take to GAN eventually. If you're just taking a break, well that's okay too! Best--Ykraps (talk) 07:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

101.222.176.245 (talk) 07:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)In this article said the both Dheeran Chinnamalai and Tippu Sultan are did a war against brittish government but the Tippu does'nt mention the big help of Dheeran Chinnamalai at any place of his history please refer the below references of Tippu Sultan's history.http://indiaopines.com/history-tipu-sultan-tiger-mysore/ http://www.itstamil.com/tipu-sultan.html http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/tipu-sultan-killed-seringapatam So please check the originality of this article because all the people trust wikipedia is give us a trustfullness articles.They given references are make by their(Kongu Vellalar) political power.Dominant community of kongu region is kongu Vellalar, hereby Indian government released dheeran stamp and TamilNadu government build a statue for Chinnamalai. Brittish government also does'nt mention this Dheeran Chinnamalai.They said Cornel Maxwell killed by Dheeram Chinnamalai at 1802 but this same Cornel Maxwell was died in Mahratt war at 1803.Brittish govt. have a proof for Cornel Maxwell's wife received 300 pounds as pension. The both 1792 and 1799 wars are failure to Tippu but they said Chinnamalai helps Tippu's victory for Seringapattinam war.They said 1/4th soldiers are placed in Tippu's team but the Tippu does'nt mention the salary details and agreement about the Dheeran Chinnamalai soldiers. So please spend time for make the wikipedia as a trustfullness site by this checking of this originality of Dheeran Chinnamalai story.[reply]

https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Wellesley%2C+Richard+Wellesley%2C+Marquess%2C+1760-1842%22

https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Lushington%2C+S.+R.+%28Stephen+Rumbold%29%2C+1776-1868%22

https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Martin%2C+Robert+Montgomery%2C+1803%3F-1868%22

http://www.britishbattles.com/second-mahratta/assaye.htm

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! As someone involved in WikiProject Dorset I just wanted to let you know that a relevant article, the Dorset Ooser, is currently undergoing FAC if you would be interested in taking a look at it and offering your opinion. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was wondering if you'd be interested in participating in Wikipedia:WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge in August which includes Dorset. A chance to win £250 as well! If contests aren't your thing we welcome independent contributors too. If interested sign up at participants. Cheers!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Wildlife - Flora and fauna are not entered, will have to find more.Osborne 21:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Weymouth Wildcats Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Speedway GP logo.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:PooleNHS.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barret, I hope you are well. I stumbled upon Medea/Iphignia/Imperieuse in your sandbox and wondered if you were still interested in working on it. It seems a shame to leave it there. Best regards--Ykraps (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ykraps, nice to hear from you. I'd forgotten about that page but I agree it does seem a shame to abandon it. I don't have much time to write content here anymore but I hope to get it finished over the next week. Barret (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for a new project and it caught my eye but I'm more than happy if you want to finish it yourself (in your own time). --Ykraps (talk) 07:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have completed your article. Very nice work. Have you considered GAN? I don't think it's far off.--Ykraps (talk) 08:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what about a DYK? I was thinking, "...once sailed under an American flag" (referring to the ruse de guerre employed against the French privateer, L'Orient) --Ykraps (talk) 09:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've not considered GAN because I don't think the Spanish service section is comprehensive enough. I struggled to find sources and as a consequence there's a big gap between launch in 1797 and her capture by the British in 1804. She was probably involved in the capture of HMS Musquito (1798) and this Spanish blog [51] has some other details but I don't know if it can be considered a reliable source.

Feel free to create a DYK. I like your example -- others that could be considered: "...that a letter from the crew of HMS Imperieuse persuaded their captain to refuse an appointment to a new ship" or "...that cabin boys from HMS Imperieuse disguised in Royal Marine uniforms were used to launch a diversionary attack on a French gun battery." Barret (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a lot of Spanish sources only talk about Medea from 1804. [[52]] I was hoping Armada Española desde la unión de los reinos de Castilla y de Léon might have something but I think we need volume 8 and Internet Archive have only uploaded the first 7.[[53]] Still, I managed to get Spanish ship Fenix (1749) to GA despite poor coverage of its Spanish career so I wouldn't let that put you off. I have nominated Imperiuse for DYK here.[[54]] --Ykraps (talk) 09:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]