User talk:Rillington

Thanks for your thanks re my edit.

I haven't yet worked out how to thank other users for their edits :-(

Spel-Punc-Gram (talk) 03:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I see that the "Thank" button is not shown in Mobile View.

Spel-Punc-Gram (talk) 03:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rillington. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "West Wolds Radio".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rillington, You seem to have created many of these timelines so I wanted to say hello and ask what you think about the changes I made yesterday. I've tabulated the decades in the snooker timeline because I think this generally makes the presentation easier to read and maintain. I'm not keen on the idea of putting "No events." for years that have nothing notable to say about them. In my opinion, that implies that there were no events for that particular sport on UK TV that year. It would be nice to get these articles consistent, but I'm not going to steam ahead without talking to you about it first. Regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reaching out to me regarding the format changes you are suggesting regarding my timelines.

I agree that we need to aim for consistency and this is why I adopted the format that followed the format adopted by other UK broadcasting-related series which had been established before I began to create new television and radio-related timelines.

I saw from the page history that it took you several hours to reformat this timeline and in order to get that consistency you would have to reformat many hundreds of timelines, and some of them literally have hundreds of items already listed.

I take your point about 'no events' but again this is following the established format and as time goes by, the number of 'no events' tends to diminish.

User:This is Paul has been very helpful regarding updating and creating timelines for UK broadcasting and I feel that getting his opinion would be useful. Rillington (talk) 12:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I can understand what you're saying of course, but there's a danger of falling into the WP:OTHERSTUFF trap here. I don't see any reason to avoid making improvements just because it interferes with consistency (in the short to medium term) – surely the best approach is to make the improvements consistent. The main question has to be whether the proposed change is an improvement in the first place! I took my lead from the Timeline of Welsh history article which I created a few years ago, and the style/layout for that was taken from the other similar history timelines, e.g. Timeline of Scottish history. I was under the impression that the tabulation route was well-established for timelines, but this might be a subjective preference rather than a project style. For the record, I would be happy to put myself forward for making progressive layout changes, at least for the suite of sports timelines. I would also be interested in taking part in a wider consensus discussion, if necessary. Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your further thoughts.

I think consistency is the ultimate aim here and you will see the two formats being used in the year-by-year timelines with the format you suggested on the snooker timeline being used for the years in television series, and the format I used for my sporting and other timelines being adopted on the years in radio series.

I have asked Paul for his input and I am also happy to participate in a wider discussion although, as I say, it will take many hours to alter even one timeline. I wouldn't be up for changing the format of hundreds of established timelines but I appreciate that you are happy to take on that role if the consensus is to change them.

And congrats on your excellent Welsh history timeline. I will now add a few broadcasting-related events. Rillington (talk) 13:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hope to see sources for your additions to Timeline of Welsh history. :o) Tony. Tony Holkham (Talk) 14:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some references have now been added. :) Rillington (talk) 02:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a standard layout. For example, some of the older television articles aren't tabulated. That's largely because I created a lot of them, and think I based them on existing articles for 2005 and 1976, then didn't want to go through and change them all. I'd support a move to standardise them if you want to do that. On the "no events" entries, I've tended to follow what was already there, but do eventually find something to fill them. I recently expanded 2020 in Irish television and did that until I found enough events to fill the months. I don't know if there's a better solution to it though. This is Paul (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of Paul's comments, and, as Paul says, as time goes by the number of 'no event' entries does diminish. Rillington (talk) 02:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind if I comment on this? I had a look a couple of days ago at a few of the radio and TV timeline articles because I wanted an idea of their standard format if any, and the ones which are formatted as lists are vastly easier to read on mobile than the ones formatted as tables. I think it probably increases the willingness of people to edit them, too. (It certainly increases my willingness, as I have to either edit on mobile or buy a new PC that I can't afford.) Musiconeologist (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I would not have changed the format of this to a table but until now, there hadn't been any definitive feedback either way so I left it as it is. However, following your comments about not being able to read it properly on your device I have reverted it back to the format of a list. Rillington (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Lewcm was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Requires secondary reliable sources with significant coverage to show notability.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Morning Edition (BBC radio programme) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Lewcm Talk to me! 18:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rillington! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Lewcm Talk to me! 18:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rillington, I have noticed the discussion you began on the Fawlty Towers talk page, "Articles for each episode". I too agree that there are enough resources for these articles to be reinstated.

In the coming few months (I am too busy just at the moment), I will attempt to improve these episode articles using two Fawlty Towers books, and websites.

So, I was wondering whether you would like to help me in reinstating these articles, whether that be by adding additional sources, doing general copyediting, rewriting the episode plots to sound more encyclopedic, etc..

I will make sure to notify you when I begin this task.

Please let me know what you think. All the best, Lotsw73 (talk) 12:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rillington, just letting you know that I have now begun attempting to reinstate the Fawlty Towers episode articles, starting by improving the episodes that still have their own articles, "Waldorf Salad" and "The Germans". I think these articles should be improved first before the other articles are reinstated. "The Germans" in particular needs reformatting to look more like a modern episode article. So far I am working on "Waldorf Salad", then I'll start on "The Germans".

I would be interested to know what your thoughts are on how to approach this task. Mr Sitcom (talk) 10:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rillington. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Five Aside".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rillington. Thank you for your work on Medway RFC. Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Good start

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rillington. Thank you for your work on Marlborough RFC. Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

good start

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rillington. Thank you for your work on Camberley RFC. Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Good start

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]