Talk:London Wildlife Trust/Archive 1

Other than the title and the orphan last sentence, this article seems to be about the Wildlife Trust(s) in general. Future contributions may want to look at work in the London area specifically.LessHeard vanU 22:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Content in this article about The Wildlife Trusts contradicts that cited in The Wildlife Trusts article. It appears to be out of date and should be deleted. A link to The Wildlife Trusts article would suffice. The rest of this article is heavily editorialized and reads as an advert for the organization including solicitations for donations. It is heavily edited by the organization itself, counter to Wikipedia guidelines on spam. This needs cleaning up or will be marked for speedy deletion. User:Bananaapplepear —Preceding undated comment added 00:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC).

List

Thanks for the work on the list; it probably needs to go in a separate article, however. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure how that would work. I doubt whether the information available on the LWT is more than would make a standard lead to a list article, so a separate article would be largely duplication of information. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

We seem to have quite enough detail for this split to occur now, so if there are no reasons why not, I'll get on with it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap I have just noticed this and I am happy with a split. Are you planning to create List of London Wildlife Trust nature reserves? I would then carry on working on the list aiming for FLC, with the short lead which is standard for list articles. Do you want to join with me in making it a joint FLC submission?

Yes, I'll do that, and yes, I'd be delighted to join in. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Great. I am planning to get more photos tomorrow. Bellenden Road has an open day. I will also look at Birdbrook and New Cross, which are nearby. They will be closed but hopefully I can get photos through the fence. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I am wondering about Walthamstow wetlands. As it is just the redevelopment of Walthamstow Reservoirs I do not see the justification for having two separate articles. What do you think of merging them and making the wetlands a redirect to the reservoirs? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

If there is substantial material to be found about the historic water supply usage, then there would be a case for keeping them separate. A quick look at what seems to be available LWT report to borough IFE fishery report Essex Field Club excavations suggests there is in fact plenty of material on the history, geology, fisheries and so on. Further, there are five stubby articles on the individual reservoirs. Those do look as if they could all be merged. So, 7 articles seems rather too many; 2 is possible; 1 might be all right. It would be easier to decide if the articles were rather better developed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Format query

The formatting for the table in this article was copied from Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust. The sites in the table in that article are left aligned and not bold, but in this article they are bold and centred - which looks wrong to me. I cannot see what is causing the problem so can anyone advise how to left align and unbold the site names? Thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• HI Dudley Miles, it was the wrong type of double quotes fancy/angled rather than basic. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Woodberry Wetlands

This site is still listed by the LWT and in this article as Stoke Newington East Reservoir Community Garden. To avoid having two entries for the same site, I think it would be better to delete the Woodberry Wetlands entry for now. Once the new site has opened and is shown in the LWT list, we can delete the Stoke Newington entry and replace it with the Woodberry one. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hm, the site already has its own LWT website and is discussed in a national newspaper report so it's notable already. I'd say delete the East Reservoir bit and expand the WW section as needed. After all, I was about to say, other editors will only recreate it ... but I see one has already been at work on it some more. It's not as if it was the only reserve without public access; indeed, there'd be no use for the YES/NO column otherwise. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes the problem is that they have two different pages for the same site. How about putting "See Woodberry Westlands" against the Stoke Newington entry and mentioning against Woodberry that it was formerly called Stoke Newington East Reservoir Community Garden? Dudley Miles (talk) 15:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, why not. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

By appt. only

I'm not entirely sure I understand why "by arrangement only" in the cited source for Bellenden is described as "No public access". Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

A fair point. My thinking was that it is illogical to single out Bellenden as the same applies to most other sites marked NO. How about an abbreviation such as "BPA" with an explanation above that it means access only by prior arrangement with the Trust? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

About

Certainly it is linked in the first paragraph and below, but people less familiar with Wikipedia may not notice the links. I think it is helpful to point out the linked article at the start for people more interested in the reserves. I do not see anything in Template:About which discourages the hatnote being used for this purpose. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Gosh, well. I have already stated two good reasons in edit comments, but plainly it is necessary to explain further. Not only is it linked in the first paragraph, and also linked below, which ought to be enough reasons, but it is plainly a subsidiary topic, part of the whole and pretty much impossible to confuse with it. Indeed, it's hard to imagine anyone coming along to this article expecting to find "List of", which after all they would have typed "List of ..." in the search box and would not have found this article instead. We do not put a hatnote "not to be confused with List of camouflage methods" at the top of Camouflage, for the good and sufficient reason that there is no risk of confusion. The hatnote is not only not required, it's actually in the way - it's the first thing people see, and it takes up critical space on people's mobile screens, and if it looks redundant, it damages the entire encyclopedic effect. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Last year I put up Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust for FLC with a list of its reserves. This passed and no one suggested that the list should be a separate article. I then decided to work on London using the same format. You wanted a separate list article. I was doubtful but as you seemed to feel strongly I agreed. I also suggested that we nominate the list for FLC, which you agreed to. However, I then became concerned that people would not find the list. Contrary to what you say, anyone not familiar with Wikipedia would probably search on the Trust rather than enter "List of" when looking for the reserves, and might not notice that there is a separate article on them.

I therefore added a hatnote pointing people to the list. You reverted, and when I posted a comment in Talk you did not reply. After a week I assumed you had nothing further to say and reverted but you have immediately reverted back. Many readers will miss the separate list article with the present structure, so I do not therefore think it is worth the trouble of putting the list up for FLC. This has led me to reconsider the separation into two articles. I have looked at other wildlife trust articles. Most list their reserves as part of the article. Some do not, but none so far as I can tell list them in a separate article. For consistency with other wildlife trust articles, and to make it easier for people to find all the information on each trust in a single article, I think it is better to revert to a single merged article. If you disagree - as I assume you probably will - I think it will be best to seek some form of arbitration. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

If the other Wildlife Trusts with comparable numbers of reserves have just one article, and that was suitable for FLC, then let's merge. I've just checked the FLC criteria and there isn't any requirement for a separation as long as the article can stand alone, so it should be fine. That way people will certainly find the list. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

FLC nomination

Hi Chiswick Chap. I never did get access to Old Ford Island but I have taken photos from outside and created a stub article. I think LWT is now ready for FLC nomination. If it is OK with you I will put it forward as a joint nomination. If you put the nomination page on your watch list you can deal with queries on the lead, and I will deal with those on the sites. OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, let's go for it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)