Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Honour --> Honor

The honour article has just been "vandalised", with all instances within the article changed to honor. I reverted it but the user has listed it on WP:RM and thus the talk page is now set to have a (hopefully one-sided) debate about the move. Thought I'd rally the troups, so to speak. violet/riga (t) 23:13, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've been wondering under what circumstances it is acceptable to "rally the troops" in such a fashion. This is a fairly obvious case (as it's someone trying to get away with something clearly objectionable), but I've had one or two other disputes over the English language (as have one or two others I suspect) where I've *not* noted it here (or at the Irish board). My cautiousness is over whether it is playing fair to get a certain group to join in any dispute, even if one warns (on the talk page where the dispute occurs) that one is doing so? Perhaps I'm asking at the wrong place, and the question should be posed at VP or mailing list or something. Comments? zoney ♣ talk 11:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it is worth posting at VP or the mailing list. There's something about the idea of swathes of users being rallied to block-vote that makes me feel vaguely uncomfortable, but I can't come up with a rational argument why not. (But this particular instance seems perfectly legitimate to me.) — Matt Crypto 11:21, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, we are not really being press-ganged into voting - I trust that each editor is making up their own mind about the proposed move. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:43, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ahem - as far as I can see, this is how the article started... -- ALoan (Talk) 11:56, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is not as clear-cut as all that, the article has used "honour" since Dec 2003, and certainly continuously in its current mature form. Also there are compelling arguments in favour of "honour", so the first (major) contributor rule wouldn't apply if they are agreed with. One argument is that almost exclusively honour is used outside the US (unlike other US spellings used in Australia, New Zealand, etc.). zoney ♣ talk 12:39, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In response to Zoney, I see nothing wrong in highlighting issues to users who may be interested. But I note what ALoan says, and know that speaking personally, I have often voted contrary to the way the person highlighting the vote has wished because I consider the question for myself, and vote based on my own thoughts, jguk 21:20, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In many ways I actually posted this to see what reaction it would get. The move was going to be objected to and denied, I think, but it really is quite interesting to think that there may be cases whereby a rallying call could sway a vote. In general I think that's quite a bad thing. violet/riga (t) 00:13, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think it will sway a marginal vote - and, as in this case, will make a certain vote a landslide (which will resolve the situation quickly and therefore be a good thing), but I don't think it would be anymore than that. I see little to be concerned about, jguk 00:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PS. I hope you're not disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, Violet;) That would be very naughty indeed:)

Radio 4

Is anyone in the UK willing to have a BBC Radio 4 reporter interview them for a pre-recorded show about knowledge management? This has to take place early next week (Monday 21/Tuesday 22 March) and I can't do it since I'm in Berlin until the 25th. Angela. 18:32, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

I'd be willing and happy to do it. Do you have any ideas as to the possible questions, or is general swotting up in order? nsh 23:48, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

I know nothing about it whatsoever but I'll ask them to phone you beforehand so you can find out. Thanks for volunteering. Angela. 23:51, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Scots language Wikipedia

I've submitted a request to create a Scots language Wikipedia. Anyone interested in helping to get it going should indicate their interest at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages#Scots or on the Wikipedia-l mailing list. -- Derek Ross | Talk 08:30, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

There's one already, Gàidhlig is listed on the main page! For some Irish topics, you may find translating articles from Gaeilge Wikipedia easier than from English. As an Irish user I find Scots-gaelic actually intelligible - the difference is that narrow (imagining Irish written as if with a Scottish accent seems to work for me!). Sometime when I've time I should learn it properly - it surely would only take a week or two for an Irish speaker. zoney ♣ talk 10:38, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's as in Scots language, not Scottish Gaelic. Alai 10:58, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Whoops! Sounds like an interesting project in that case! zoney ♣ talk 16:11, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Er, yes. I'm actually a sysadmin on the Gàidhlig one, so I was aware of it ... -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:48, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

UK Collaboration of the Week

I've recently done a major overhaul to the UK Collaboration of the Week, I'd really like to get this started again so this is an invitation to get involved (if anyone happens to be reading this). :) Talrias | talk 18:29, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Standardize Spellings

Oh dear. "This site currently uses both American Spellings and Commonwealth British Spellings. I feel the American spellings should be added to the Wikipedia Style Guide and all British Spellings should be changed over. Imagine all the schoolchildren who are using Wikipedia in the classroom and learning how to spell incorrectly (not that -ours, -ises, and -nnes aren't correct in England.) If we want to be taken seriously, we need standards...." — Wikipedia:Standardize Spellings — Matt Crypto 09:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here we go again

Yes it's come up one more time i/e/ let's move everything to "The American Way", 'American pie' charts and all - see Talk:Humour Jooler 09:14, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Anyone wanting to meet up in the UK???

I have turned the list of cities into sections on the Meetup page: Wikipedia:Meetup#UK Call for interested persons. If anyone would be interested in a meet up then please list yourself under any cities that you would be prepared to get to. We can't have London hogging all the meetings ;) Greg Robson 08:00, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikimania

Is anyone else from the UK planning to go to Wikimania? If anyone is considering flying from Bristol Airport and wants co-ordinate travel plans then leave a note here and we can discuss. Ideally I'll be arriving in Frankfurt in late afternoon on the thursday and leaving again on Monday evening. Thryduulf 21:39, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately they've organised it for four days after I move to Cincinnati, otherwise Bristol would have been perfect! (actually, I voted for August, it's my fault for not checking my other priorities before accepting the job offer) Joe D (t) 01:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

192.158.55.17 and Stockton-on-Tees

Are there any experts on the north-east around who could confirm my suspicions that 192.158.55.17's contributions related to Stockton-on-Tees contain a fair dose of nonsense, hoax and POV? I've already tagged Hartburn with "POV check" and Amberley Close is just silly. --rbrwr^± 22:17, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hartburn and Amberley Close both read like nonsense and should probably be VfD'd. The claim that Gordon Ramsay lived in Amberley Close doesn't square with the Gordon Ramsay article nor any search. The other claims are probably bogus too. -- Solipsist 07:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Have edited Hartburn to remove 192.158.55.17's nonsense and add other details, and nominated Amberley Close for fast delete as a vanity page - MPF 01:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Moorgate

Hi all. Just to let you know that I've put Moorgate on WP:FAC. --JuntungWu 04:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)