User talk:BarretB/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

HELP!!!!!!!!

I was adding stuff to the Christchurch page when an edit conflict appeared. Not knowing what to do, I cancelled my edits. My edits have gone but the Christchurch page is all over the place! I am sorry if I have messed things up, please can you help me put it right.--Ykraps (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't panic the page looks OK to me :) The edit conflict might have happened when I moved the history section to the top of the page. I hope you didn't lose too much work. Barret (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realise you had deliberately moved that section until I went into the 'edit history'. It was the section I was working on and so I thought it was something I'd done. Fortunately I tend to use my user page to write drafts and then I copy and paste so I haven't actually lost anything (just a bit of time). Regards--Ykraps (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I have put back all my lost edits, I hope you like them. I expect there are more spelling mistakes for you to correct though :)--Ykraps (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey

From your username I thought you might be interested in the following task forces. I updated them recently but they, unfortunately, don't have much in the way of membership or I would do more with them: Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Military fiction task force and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Napoleonic era task force/Napoleonic fiction. Cheers, Sadads (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Although I'm a big fan of the Aubrey-Maturin series I don't think there's much I can offer these projects at the moment so I'm going to decline for now. All the best. Barret (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information

I don't know if I need an account or something to suggest an alteration? As I stated, the "winged dagger" myth is one perpetuated by those who don't know the true meaning of the SAS's emblem, and not by The Regiment themselves. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.35.250 (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Christchurch, Dorset

Hi Barret, sorry to bother you again! I am about done with the history of Christchurch and would like to look at improving other areas. I have noticed that many articles include tables for demographics, climate etc which seem to have been sourced externally (or has the information been sourced externally and added to a template?). Anyway, I wondered if you might be able to tell me where I could get help with this as I think a few charts and graphs would add interest to the Christchurch page. Thanks--Ykraps (talk) 08:43,

The information is usually sourced externally and placed into a wikitable -- there are a few examples you could copy on the Poole and Weymouth articles. The climate table is the only templated table I could find in these (Template:Infobox Weather). Here are some websites you might find useful for Christchurch:
  • Weather [1]
  • Vision of Britain historical info [2]
  • Statistics [3]
  • Population change [4] (click table view)
  • Office of National Statistics [5]
  • Dorset County Council: Christchurch [6]
  • Census town profile [7] (pdf)
  • 2008 Town profile [8] (pdf)
Barret (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I can work it out now. Thanks for the brilliant web sites too, there is some interesting stuff there.--Ykraps (talk) 17:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Promotion

Hi Barrett,
Just to let you know that Christchurch, Dorset has been raised from a start class article to a C class. Thanks for all your help in acheiving this--Ykraps (talk) 07:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Great work so far, it's on its way to GA standard hopefully. Barret (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi I am another local

I am interested in the local history and may contribute bits of info from time to time. Royal Bournemouth Hospital is obviously not very historical but it is strange that there is no article for it and there should be one. Southampton General Hospital would serve as a template for it. Also there is Poole Hospital and Christchurch Hospital (Dorset UK). Can i tempt you to kick these articles off ? --Penbat (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi I've been thinking about creating Poole Hospital for a while and I'll probably make a start on it sometime within the next couple of weeks. Bournemouth and Christchurch I'll leave for now but I'm sure stubs could easily be created for both. Barret (talk) 21:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Im developing stubs for Bournemouth and Christchurch hospitals in my sandbox User:Penbat/Royal Bournemouth Hospital User:Penbat/Christchurch Hospital (UK). I will probably unleash it in a day or two. Feel free to tweak my sandbox versions. --Penbat (talk) 07:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Your Comments

Thanks for your comments about the Christchurch page which were, as always, helpful.
I am not satisfied with a 'C' so I will of course try to develop the article further.
Thanks for your invite, I would love to join the project. I only hope I am able to make a contribution. Wikipedia is starting to take over my life, I should be at work now. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 10:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
P.S. I never know where I should reply to people: Their talk page, my talk page, the articles talk page etc. What is the custom?

just to butt in Ykraps, the usual convention is to expect a reply on the talk page where the original comment was made. If, say you made a comment on my talk page, you would expect me to reply there. It helps continuity and flow to keep discussions in the same place as they were started. --Penbat (talk) 11:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi again Penbat,
So I would reply to the above comment here then? It seems a bit rude to have a discussion on someone else's talkpage (sorry Barret)--Ykraps (talk) 07:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's up to individual preferences. I usually respond on the page where the original message was left so that the discussion remains unfragmented (see notice at top of this page). Some other editors prefer to respond on the talk page of whoever left them a message. Off topic -- Ykraps see Help:Using talk pages#Indentation (and Wikipedia:Wikipediholic :P) --Barret (talk) 21:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I get it now. The depth of the indentation relates to the topic! Thanks for other link too, I think I'm still in the early stages!--Ykraps (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Size of Christchurch

Hi Barrett,
I wasn't thinking when I typed that information. I lifted it directly from here http://www.dorsetforyou.com/media.jsp?mediaid=107905&filetype=pdf (see page 5). They must be talking about the county as a unitary authority (not including Bmth and Poole which have their own authorities) although that isn't made clear. Are we sure it is the 4th largest?--Ykraps (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right. TBH I wasn't 100% certain but I couldn't think of any other towns larger than Bournemouth, Poole, Weymouth or Christchurch. This link seems to support it's the 4th largest [9]. Barret (talk) 14:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I made a few checks myself too so I'm happy with that ranking. I was surprised that Dorchester was only around 18,000. I would have thought it was larger.--Ykraps (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Geograph. org.uk

Hi Barret,
Do images from Geograph.co.uk have to be uploaded to Wikicommons before they can be used? If so can they be uploaded from their existing location or do I need to download to my computer first and upload them from there? Also, almost all the authors wish to be attributed to their work. Does this mean I have to credit them in a caption? --Ykraps (talk) 07:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Many geograph images have recently been uploaded to the commons in bulk so I recommend searching the commons first to find out if the image you want hasn't been uploaded already. To upload a new geograph image you will need to save it to your computer before uploading to the commons.
If for example you wanted to upload this image of Poole hospital, after you've saved the image to your computer click on the link "Find out how to reuse this Image" under the image. Scroll down to "Wikipedia Template for image page" and then copy and paste the text in the box underneath to the commons basic upload page. Once the image is uploaded don't forget to add categories. An example of a geograph image I recently uploaded can be found here. If you need any more assistance let me know. Barret (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Roberts and Iraq War advocacy

Please can you explain why you have continually deleted references to Andrew Robert's advocacy of the Iraq War from his web page? He is the UK intellectual most closely identified with the pro-war lobby, and appeared frequently on Newsnight and Questiontime to make the case for war. He frequently compared the situation to the 1930's and often used the word appeasement. It isnt reasonable to try to rewrite history in this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.125.170 (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I have already explained why under your comment on the article's talk page. Barret (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

OK; thank you for leaving in half of the Iraq war paragraph. Why have you removed his well documented defence of water boarding? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.125.170 (talk) 05:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed it because the source you provided [10] didn't contain the quotes you added and although Abu Ghraib prison is mentioned, his views on any interrogation techniques that took place inside are not. Thanks for providing an alternative source and rewriting the sentence. Barret (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Barret wasnt sure why you removed sentence about casualties? Roberts thinks WOT is worth fighting, and the costs in lives are low, and has said so in print? It was sourced/cited? For many people Iraq War/WOT/4th WW/fight against islamofascism is what Roberts is most famous for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.125.170 (talk) 06:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

My objection was your choice of wording - Wikipedia has a strict policy regarding BLPs and sensitive content such as this must be written with great care. Roberts compares the casualty numbers to other wars but he doesn't say anything them being "acceptable" in the source. Barret (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Barret curious to know why you removed quote about waterboarding only being used on 3 people? It is a strong statement on an important issue and directly from his writing.

Also, I had a technical question about BLP in wikipedia. What happens when the source documents are no longer available in the link? Does the biographical data have to be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.125.170 (talk) 06:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think that quote is a strong statement and an important issue? The section contains an excessive amount of quotes (Wikipedia:Quotations) and there is already a quote in which he says he believes waterboarding was necessary. In answer to your second question, I think it depends on the type of content. If it's negative or controversial biographical content and you can't find an alternative source I would remove it. If it's not controversial and you can't find an alternative source you could add {{dead link}}, try searching for the dead link in web archiving service such as archive.org or WebCite, or place a request for a source on the talk page (more info: WP:Deadref) --Barret (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Daer Barret thanks for this. I think your editing is fair by the way. The question about dead links wasnt with anything particular in mind, I just wondered what happens as wikipedia ages. It seems a bit harsh to criticise the section as full of quotes. This is only because anything that isnt directly in quotes and fully attributable seems to be automatically removed. Given the rather controversial nature of the topic, this also seems fair. It isnt stylish though, I agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.125.170 (talk) 19:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Thanks for reverting edits to Christchurch, Dorset. The article is currently awaiting peer review so your intervention was important. On reflection, I feel I should have done you the courtesy of letting you know about the peer review so my apologies for that. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 07:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome but it was no trouble—easily reverted with the click of a button. Don't worry I already noticed the peer review request from my watchlist =) Barret (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Poole Hospital

Thanks for this brilliant new article! Ironholds (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Barret (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Christchurch Hospital, Dorset, Royal Bournemouth Hospital and Christchurch original railway station

The Christchurch Hospital, Dorset, Royal Bournemouth Hospital and Christchurch original railway station articles are now all live.--Penbat (talk) 10:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

KASPER SCHMEICHEL

I have added neutral analysis. I stated that he conceded after 13 minutes into his debut and that Derby won 2-1 ultimately. How is this not neutral? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jared5050 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with that edit. The warning was for these previous edits [11] [12] [13] [14] which contain POV wording and your personal analysis. Barret (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

All of said edits were speedy responses to inappropriate language or to tone down hyperbole, El Senior Fanatico.

Hardened regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jared5050 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Your efforts to remove vandalism are appreciated but you must remember to maintain a neutral point of view (you have been warned about this before). Please also take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch) and remember to sign your posts. Thanks. Barret (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Assistance: Uploading images and putting them on a page or infobox

Hi Barret, Im having trouble knowing how to upload images and placing them into an infobox or on a page. May you kindly assist me on this matter by telling me how to do the whole procedure. I would be very greatful and improve some qualities and appearence of some articles. DennisGWhiskers (talk) 14:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Xch

Hi Barrett, I see you have had a crack at the Christchurch article. Thanks for your efforts. I had a couple of goes at rewriting the transport section myself but I was far from satisfied with it. You have inserted a couple of dead links though (Iford and Tuckton), are these articles that are coming soon or should the links be removed?
I see also that you have removed the pop by ward table in the demographics section which I agree probably wasn't of interest to everyone. Also I thought that section was looking a bit crowded. Putting 'education' in its own section makes it look a bit short though. Would it be appropriate to add some history to it?
Also I wanted to add something about leisure facilities (golf courses, swimming pool etc). Is that something that should go in and if so, where? Thanks for your interest in this article--Ykraps (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Ykraps. Thanks for fixing my typos. I'm going have a go at expanding some sections such as education and economy while also reorganising the article so that it conforms more to WP:UKCITIES. You've done a fantastic job so far adding content and references so there's not too much I intend to add. I think Iford and Tuckton deserve articles and could be created in the near future, even if they are just stubs. Leisure facilities could go in a 'Sport and recreation' section. Does Christchurch have any sports teams worth a mention? If you disagree with any of the edits I make don't hesitate to let me know. Barret (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Famous sports teams!? No. Christchurch FC is languishing in the Wessex League. Although (if I may venture a bit of banter) they did manage to force a draw with Poole Town the other week, after going 5-0 down! :).
Both Iford and Tuckton were part of Christchurch at one time so I probably have a bit of information I could add. I have only created one article and that took ages to get accepted so I don't think I've got the time to start another just yet. I've still got quite a bit more to add to the Christchurch page and some of the research I've done has led to other things, for example, I now have information to add to the Xch Priory article.
I don't know what sort of stuff should go in the education section. Twynham certainly used to do 'evening' classes for adults and I suspect the other comprehensives did too. If history is appropriate, there were a number of schools in Christchurch that no longer exist and a technical college (inaugurated in 1898). Perhaps I'll put something on my user page for you to look at. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I put some stuff on my user page but then realised that I'd already put most of it in the history section of the article.--Ykraps (talk) 08:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Christchurch FC might be worth a brief mention even though they are only in the lowly Wessex League. Poole doesn't have much going for it in the way of top level sports teams (unless you include speedway I suppose) but the article includes some filler about its non-league footie teams. The sort of things that need to go in the education section are percentage of students gaining A-C grades at GSCE level and A level results. How many schools does Christchurch have?
I was having a look for sources on archive.org today and found these old PDF books which were quite interesting and might be of some use to you:
Barret (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for these links. There is some useful stuff here even though it doesn't always compliment more modern thinking. It is particularly interesting to see how theories back then are supported or debunked by archaeology some 60 years later. I have used some info from the Beautiful England book in the priory article already.--Ykraps (talk) 07:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
P.S Sorry, I didn't answer your question about the schools. There are 3 comprehensives: Twynham, Highcliffe and The Grange. There used to be a private school too but this closed a couple of years ago. The primary schools are: Clarendon Road Infants, Clarendon Road Juniors, Mudeford Infants, Mudeford Juniors, Somerford Infants, Somerford Juniors, Burton CofE Primary (combined infants & juniors), The Priory CofE Primary (combined infants and juniors).--Ykraps (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for your most recent edits. It is always good to get a fresh take on the article and it gives me inspiration too. I have been looking for stuff to expand the governance section but you beat me to it! Also I appreciate you giving the article a trim as that is something I'm really bad at, having a tendency to add information without considering whether it is either relevant or interesting. On the subject of adding information, do you have an opinion on Penbat's suggestion regarding historical districts (see Christchurch Talk)?
BTW I was aware that Jamie Redknapp is almost exclusively recorded as having been born at Barton on Sea. As Christchurch has no maternity facility, its 'sons and daughters' are in truth, invariably born elsewhere. Many of my friends (and two of my children) who consider themselves to be born in Christchurch were actually born at Barton on Sea Nursing Home; or the Royal Victoria Hospital, Boscombe. I have no wish to revert the edits, I just thought I should explain my interpretation of the facts. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I remember what it is I wanted to ask! My typing is so slow, I lose my thread sometimes (or maybe its just my age!). Ruhrfisch, who reviewed the article, has questioned the validity of a source and I am inclined to have my own doubts. I have searched for alternative references to these sentences which are historical to the article but to no avail. I hate deleting stuff as you know so I have been considering how to rewrite with more reliable references but I am struggling with that too. Have you any ideas?--Ykraps (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Also the image in the culture section was appropriate when it was called 'present day' but now seems a little out of place. A photo of the regatta or folk festival would be good but I can't get one for another year! I have a picture of the market which to me is not very interesting but might be more fitting. Any thoughts?--Ykraps (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I see what you mean about the culture image. The only replacements I could find was this one of the high street during a festival or one of the empty bandstand. Neither seem particularly interesting though so perhaps we'll have to be patient for a year! Btw while searching for images I found a few decent quality images on flickr (pages 2 and 3) - perhaps some of them could be of use elsewhere in the article or related articles.
Moving on to the "this is dorset" citation - I don't think it qualifies as a reliable source either. I've made some suggestions for replacements below:
It includes large unurbanised areas, including Bournemouth International Airport, and the parishes of Burton and Hurn. - reference could be removed completely as this is unlikely to be questioned
This medium-sized priory and market town is generally regarded as a conservative, slow-paced and a popular tourist and retirement destination. "Where time is pleasant" (according to the town's official description). -- this isn't essential and could be removed from the article.
On the south side, the harbour is enclosed by Hengistbury Head which was the site of the earliest settlement here dating back to the Neolithic Age. Perhaps Neolithic should be replaced with Bronze Age - Hengistbury Head article says it's not until then that "traces of the site's occupation are apparent". Replcement reference: [15]
33.1% of the population are of retirement age and Highcliffe on the borough's eastern boundary possesses the highest percentage of elderly residents in the entire United Kingdom (65%). Replacement refs: [16] (2001 census) [17] (2003 -- Highcliffe ""oldie" capital of the country" with average age of 63 and 69% of population aged over 60) Barret (talk) 18:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Barrett, these references look much better. I will get to work on the article shortly. I have added a section on Sport and recreation section as we discussed earlier. I'd be obliged if you'd take a quick look to make sure its okay.--Ykraps (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Mudeford

Can yourself or Ykraps do anything to beef up the historical stuff on Mudeford ? Anything on Bure Homage House or Somerford Grange would be good in particular. --Penbat (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Somerford (Dorset) and Purewell need doing as well.

Also there is this - RAF Christchurch.

Incidentally do either of you know anything about the history of The Pump House near The Quomps in Christchurch ? --Penbat (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Penbat. Mudeford should be fairly easy to expand as there's smuggling, the battle of mudeford, the Dutch house and the construction of the quay to talk about. The beach as it was then, was heavily defended during the war (remember the huge pillbox at Sandhills?) Sandhills itself could be mentioned and Gundimore too. Somerford Grange was the home of John Draper (last prior) in the mid 1500s and was pulled down in 1938? I don't know much about Bure Homage House other than it was demolished in the 70s. I think it was used by American officers during the war. Is the lodge still there?
Somerford might be a challenge as it was fields until comparatively recently but Purewell might be 'do-able'. I don't know whether the airfield is Mudeford or Somerford but it could be mentioned in both articles as long as it doesn't dominate either.
I don't really know a lot about the pump house. It looks Victorian to me or possibly very early 1900s. I think it pumped foul water and the sewage system was laid in Christchurch around that time. The pump that replaced it is underground at the corner of Wick Lane, where Bemister's fountain used to stand.--Ykraps (talk) 07:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Does the pump house have a blue plaque?--Ykraps (talk) 07:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Penbat, I'm afraid I know very little about the history and buildings of Christchurch (I rarely visit) nor do I have any decent references to hand so I think I'll leave this with Ykraps. Barret (talk) 14:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

We already have Battle of Mudeford. I have snippets of relevant info but not a coherant sequence. Bure Homage House and Somerford Grange were both domineering features in Mudeford and Somerford respectively but unfortunately not much info seems to be available that I know of. I was told that Bmouth Central Library has a good local history reference section with a specialist librarian who should know where to look for specific info. BH House was associated with Highcliffe Castle and was owned by different aristcrats, It was commandered as officers quarters in WW2 for Xchurch airfield then fell into disrepair then demolished about 1960. BH Lodge is still there. Somerford, Mudeford and Purewell all mainly consisted of farms and aristocrats estates. Somerford Grange has a very rich history going back to medieval times and monks etc. BAE is on the site of Somerford Grange and we still have a Grange Rd. I think the airfield is more associated with Somerford than Mudeford. --Penbat (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
You seem better informed than me. I feel another trip to the library is called for! Maybe I'll go to the one in Bournemouth. Is that at the Lansdowne college?
Although there is an article about the battle of Mudeford, a short piece could still go in with a link to the main article.
BTW, did you ever track down all the pill boxes? I've been reading over our previous conversations, you mention the 6 sided one in Mudeford Wood, do you know there is a 4 sided one at the back of the recycling centre? I am still keen to do an article on Xch's war time defences but like you, I can't always find the references I need.--Ykraps (talk) 07:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I've added a bit to Mudeford. You might want to tidy it up. I'll come back to it later. Unless Barret is particularly interested in this conversation, might I suggest we move it to one of our talk pages?--Ykraps (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Geograph images

I tried to upload the following images from http://www.geograph.org.uk but got confused. If you can spare the time pls can you do it for me. thx:

--Penbat (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll field this one if you like.--Ykraps (talk) 10:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Its no problem. I'll start uploading the images to the commons now. Barret (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Ykraps has done the first one http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/761655.--Penbat (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review - Christchurch

Hi Barret, one of the things mentioned in the peer review was the use of bullet points. Personally I like bullet points as they are 'punchier' and (I think) make it easier to read. However, I am interested in getting the article elevated to a 'good article' and I'm willing to make sacrifices to achieve that end. I have therefore converted the offending landmark section to prose on my user page. Would you take a look and make any alterations/comments you feel necessary before I copy and paste to the main article? You will find the draft on my user page under the collapsible heading 'bits to add to the christchurch page'. It is the first paragraph, marked for your attention.--Ykraps (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC) P.S. Will it also be necessary to do this with the Notable residents section?

You've done a good job - you could add this to the article straight away after breaking it up into paragraphs and adding a few images and wikilinks. However, if I'm completely honest I think it's a little bloated and this could be picked up on at GAN. I think you need to be more ruthless - decide whether or not some of this content is really suitable for an encyclopedic entry. For example, although interesting, is the information about the smugglers' cache, mathematical tiles, the taphephobic Mrs Perkins and her mausoleum, the woman who sat on tub of brandy, and the origins of the name of Ye Olde Eight Bells etc essential? And what is an Emerald coach? Are any of the town centre buildings listed [18]? Apart from the High Street, are the street names necessary? Most people reading the article won't be familiar with Christchurch and they will mean little to them. I would keep the start of the section but I recommend trying to summarise the rest of much as possible. The museums info could be moved to the culture section and any content you can't keep could be placed in a new article at Landmarks of Christchurch, Dorset (where it could remain in a bulleted list) because everything you have there is very well referenced. Moving onto the rest of the landmarks section, are there any other popular tourist attractions that could be mentioned? The Quay for example? The Christchurch Priory section needs a bit of expansion and I would create a separate subsection for Highcliffe Castle.
I'm afraid it probably will be necessary to convert the notable residents list into prose (I see you've made a start on your user page). Once you've completed this I think the only major obstacles to GA standard are the economy section (needs expanding) and the history section (needs to be cut down and summarised! (-:). Barret (talk) 15:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I will probably insert it into the article now and work on paring it down a bit at a time. You mentioned before about making the history of Christchurch a seperate article and I think now that that is the way to go. I deliberately didn't add much about smuggling to the Christchurch page as it was my intention to write an article about smuggling in Christchurch. It might now be better to use that information in the history of article. Would the history article contain information about historical residents, buildings etc?
Christchurch has some 300 listed buildings so I have whittled it down quiet a lot! :) All those mentioned in the article are grade ii and above and I picked them because they have a bit of a story to tell but I suppose I could add those stories to another article. Is it best to create an article about the landmarks of Christchurch or weave the information into a history of Christchurch article? Some of those buildings are central to smuggling activities and so would probably be mentioned in a history article. The Priory, Christchurch castle and Highcliffe castle already have seperate articles which is why I didn't add much about them. Was that the right thing to do in that instance? Also should they be tagged main article? I could probably put a bit about the quay together but I will need to search for references, dates etc. so it might take a while.
As you've noticed, I have made a start with the notable residents section. Now it is going to be converted, does it need to be in date order as this will seriously disrupt the flow?--Ykraps (talk) 07:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Yep a separate history article could contain anything important to the history of Christchurch including residents and buildings as long as its referenced and I don't see a problem with integrating the landmarks into it. I don't think the notable residents section has to be in date order - I've had a look at your draft for this section and it looks good although I don't think the years for dob-dod are needed and I would be wary of adding anyone who doesn't have an article for notability purposes. The summary of the castles and priory in the article seems fine and I don't think the {{main}} template is needed because the articles are linked in the opening sentences. Barret (talk) 17:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks.--Ykraps (talk) 07:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I've rewritten the notable residents section but I suspect you are watching that page anyway. Feel free to tweak it. I've removed Arthur Romney Green and Owen Tudor Burne because they don't have their own articles. They are both famous in their own fields however. Green is a known furniture maker whose works command quite large sums at Sotherbys and Christies, although suprisingly I can't find much in the way of references except http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjectID=3054273. Burne, as well as being an accomplished soldier, mentioned in dispatches during the Indian Mutiny, has also published memoirs. Again, annoyingly, I can't find much info except http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lcBt_Esyt4AC&pg=PA165&lpg=PA165&dq=Sir+Owen+tudor+Burne&source=bl&ots=R28qhJEjZd&sig=rgI1kCSKPdOL-rMUW7x1NhcbrK0&hl=en&ei=hv6mTM2wL9fPjAfX-anYDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CEAQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Sir%20Owen%20tudor%20Burne&f=false . It just goes to show you can't find everything on the internet! :)

Maybe I'll put them back in when I've got better sources.--Ykraps (talk) 10:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Ykraps/Landmarks of Christchurch, Dorset

This article is at Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2010 October 4. Please feel free to review it there, if you have time. Thanks--Ykraps (talk) 08:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ykraps. I have limited access to internet at the moment so I'm unable to make a detailed review. I think you could move this draft to the mainspace as it is. If you're concentrating on improving Christchurch you needn't get too bogged down with the landmarks article. But as Senra has suggested a list format might be a good idea and Listed buildings in Crawley looks like a decent guide for layout. More examples at Wikipedia:Featured lists#Listed buildings. Barret (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I am working on a list version on my user page at the moment but might move the existing article to the mainspace in the interim. How do I do that by the way?--Ykraps (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
List version now at User:Ykraps/Landmarks of Christchurch, Dorset (list).--Ykraps (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Dunno if Barret is around but it is easy moving to mainspace. Select all the text in your user version with Ctrl A, select Copy, enter Landmarks of Christchurch, Dorset in the Wiki search box and it will say article does not exist do you want to create it. You go ahead and paste in copied text. If you are confused by this tell me and i can do it for you.--Penbat (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Apologies for not replying to your query sooner. An easier way is to click the move tab at the top of the page (this is in a drop down box to the right of the history tab and the watchlist star on my display) and alter the name in the "new title" box. Barret (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
My thanks to you both, I have decided to leave it where it is for the moment as it needs a bit of a tweak.--Ykraps (talk) 08:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I have moved this article to Listed buildings in Christchurch, Dorset--Ykraps (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Christchurch

Hi Barret, I seem to have lost my way a bit with the Christchurch article and wondered if you had any ideas about what to do next. I have created a list of listed buildings article (see above) and this has allowed me to abridge the Landmarks section of the Christchurch article. I have also copied the History section to User:Ykraps/History of Christchurch, Dorset where I hope to expand it and turn it into a new article. I have trimmed the history section of the Christchurch article but it probably needs a proper haircut and this is one of the things I'm struggling with. Also there is a dead link that needs correcting. I could probably find an alternative source but my concern is that this will keep happening as web sites change. Someone told me there is a way to back them up so this doesn't happen. Is that anything you know about? I was given a link but it didn't really make much sense to me. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I've just completed a bit of work on the landmarks section. I've rearranged it in places, expanded some parts and trimmed others and and added a bit about the town's Grade I bridges. I've removed the descriptions of the Perkins mausoleum and concrete bridge (not sure if they were as significant as the other landmarks), Fusee factory (already mentioned in history section) and Bailey bridge history (I think this belongs in the history section). You know Christchurch better than me so let me know if you disagree with any of this. Perhaps the St Catherine's hill info could be merged into the geography section. Other things that could be worked on are the demographics section which needs a bit of a tidy (I would join single sentence paragraphs & perhaps remove one of the tables) + the economy section needs some expansion. The FAs and GAs at WP:UKGEO are always helpful if you need inspiration. Is this what you need for the dead link? If wayback has an archived version of the link then you can add it to the cite web template with archiveurl= and archivedate=. Barret (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on the landmarks section. I will take a better look later but it appears to be in good order. The new images are impressive too. I agree St Catherine's Hill should be in the geography section with Stanpit Marsh and Hengistbury Head. Re the wayback machine, I've tried entering the website addresses but can't get any results. Is it something I'm doing wrong?--Ykraps (talk) 20:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Not every site is archived. What's the dead link's URL? Barret (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
The website address of the dead link is http://www.natula.co.uk/Book_StCatherinesHill.htm. I don't think it's required as it's a link to the page of the book already cited, plus the sentence has an additional reference; but it would be nice to know if I'm doing something wrong. As regards the castle, you are quite right, there is no archaeological evidence for a wooden fort. There is documentary evidence to support a wooden fort built by Richard de Redvers around 1100 (from memory). The motte (hill) however has been dated even older than that and appears to be part of the old Saxon town defences. There is an assumption that the Saxons built a fort on the top but no evidence whatsoever. I don't know where that edit came from or how it managed to slip by me. --Ykraps (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I added "archaeological evidence suggests" while working on my draft version of the landmarks section -- I forgot to remove it and realised my error today (oops). Wayback doesn't find an archived version of that link for me either so I don't think you were doing anything wrong. Barret (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
An easy mistake to make. I am assuming the Wayback backs things up automatically? I don't have to ask it to back things up?--Ykraps (talk) 08:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, with regards to the economy section, what sort of things should it contain. A few articles have included economic history, would that be appropriate here? What about unemployment, average earnings and house price index, or would those be better in the demography section? The only other thing I can think of is the business birth rate.--Ykraps (talk) 08:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I've not edited Wikipedia in a while - it's good to see you're continuing to develop the article. If you still plan to expand the economy section I have some suggestions and links: It could begin with a note on traditional employment sectors. A note on tourism and its contribution to the economy and perhaps mention some of the major attractions and types of tourist accommodation [19]. Major employment sectors and major employers in the town -- Bournemouth airport is one of the "key economic generators in the sub-region" and Aviation park "the largest employment site in Dorset" [20]. Retail information [21]. More statistics and links here (suggests communications and transport is growing industry) [22]. Unemployment, average earnings and house prices could be mentioned here instead of demographics and the occupational sector table could be moved to economy section. Barret (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Barret, welcome back. Thanks for the advice and links. I will start work on the section soon. History of Christchurch, Dorset is now live and I am slowly trimming bits from the Christchurch page. I have made a request for an assessment for both the History of and Listed buildings articles here. I hope that was the right thing to do. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Yep that's fine. The only problem is that there isn't much activity at Wikiproject Dorset (I think there are only two or three of us project members who are actively working on Dorset articles) so I've assessed them for you. Barret (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks--Ykraps (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Page move

Hi Barret. Someone has moved the History of Christchurch, Dorset to History of Christchurch. I don't know whether that is an appropriate thing to do or not but my main concern is that anyone looking for the history of another Christchurch will be taken to this page and not be able to get off it as there are no redirects/hatnotes. Any thoughts?--Ykraps (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the move was completely unnecessary. I see the editor started a move request discussion on the talk page but went ahead and moved the page without any discussion which is rather poor etiquette. The page can be moved back but I think History of Christchurch would still redirect there. Barret (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Just eavesdropping, it isnt of earth-shattering importance but it is now inconsistent with Listed buildings in Christchurch, Dorset‎ and Christchurch, Dorset. Personally i would revert then if the same editor wanted to do the move again again he would understand to discus it properly first. --Penbat (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted it.--Penbat (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok I support the reversion. History of Christchurch now redirects there so I've added a hatnote for readers looking for the history of the NZ city. Barret (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
To be nitpicky, it might be slightly better to make "History of Christchurch" a DAB page.--Penbat (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
No objections from me. Barret (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Penbat/Barret. I am happier with Dorset in the title because, as Penbat points out, it is consistent with the other Christchurch articles. Although I've been here a while now I am not fully au fait with wiki etiquette so didn't know whether the user's actions were appropriate or not. The user was formerly known as Homan's Copse and has instigated a number of move discussions.--Ykraps (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Xch article - more?

Hi Barret. I've added a table and some more info to the economy section but I'm wary of 'over cooking' it. Do you think it needs more? Also I have trimmed the history section but could reduce it some more and combine the history and industrial history sections. Would that be a good idea or not? Yours--Ykraps (talk) 13:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes I would merge those sections of the history. I've had a go at cutting it down in my userspace (User:BarretBonden/Sandbox) but I wasn't sure if it covered the most important parts of the town's history and the last paragraph needs expanding with some more info about tourism and more recent history so I wasn't comfortable about adding it to the article. The economy section is much better. I don't think it needs anything more but I think the table is too detailed and won't interest most people (sorry - I know it probably took a while to create). Barret (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I think what you've done is good and covers the most important bits. Perhaps a bit more about the civil war? I agree it probably needs some more modern history but apart from a poll tax demonstration in 1990, Christchurch has been quite a dull place recently :). There has been some redevelopment if you think that would be of interest. As you say, the sentence about tourism is a bit vague but I've had problems finding references. Tourism in the area started around the 1790s when George III came to stay (I can probably cite that much) but I don't think it was big business until around 1850s when Bournemouth started to develop. I will have to do more digging! Is it okay to edit your sandbox? If not I'll put something on my user page for you to look at. With regards to the table, you can lose it if you like. I thought it might make the section more visually appealing but it was as much an experiment as anything else. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 10:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
A extra bit on the civil war and a note about redevelopment sounds good. Perhaps a note on the start of tourism could be added with the arrival of the railway (I'm guessing this is when tourist numbers began to increase). You are welcome to edit the sandbox or you can copy-paste it over to your user space. I don't see any harm in leaving the table in the article for now -- I think the article could soon be ready for GAN so we'll see what the reviewer thinks. Barret (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Have added some bits to your sandbox as discussed but feel free to remove/rewrite anything.--Ykraps (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I've trimmed some bits in an attempt to keep it as succinct as possible. Perhaps some of the parts I've removed could be added to the "History of" article. I think it could do with an extra sentence at the end but I don't think much more is needed (apart from a few references) unless you think there is anything important missing. Do you have an alternative picture of the fusee factory - something like this which shows the side of the building? Barret (talk) 10:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll fill in the references over the next couple of days and have a think about a summary sentence. I do have a side view of the fusee factory but it's not as good as that one. I'll upload it to commons soon. If it's no good, I can always get another.--Ykraps (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


I don't know that I've got the lens for the shot you want, there are buildings at my back here, but I'll have a go next time in town.--Ykraps (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I have inserted the missing references but can't find anything that suggests when work started on the town's wartime defences. I will have another look later, otherwise we'll probably have to reword that bit. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Adebayor..

Why did yu delete my edit -- ZakariaM (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

GA?

Hi Barret, I am assuming you are busy at the moment so I have gone ahead and moved the new history section to the Christchurch article. I think that, in conjuction with the 'History of' article, that section is quite comprehensive (but let me know what you think). I gather from previous conversations that you believe the article satisfies the criteria for 'Good Article' but I will wait a few days before nominating it, in case you wish to change anything. Best--Ykraps (talk) 08:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look at the article again tomorrow this week but I don't think it needs much more work. Barret (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
No worries.--Ykraps (talk) 09:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Verwood

FYI, I tracked down two of the Verwood images and confirmed they came from Google, so I deleted them.--SPhilbrickT 21:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Barret (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Huligan0

Perhaps you want to look at the rest of Huligan0's contributions and revert the other article talk page additions warning about the firing range. I've had a bit of a run in with him today so don't want to be seen to be too antagonistic. --Simple Bob (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok I've left a note on his talk page and made a few more reversions. Barret (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Dear SimpleBob, you threatened me with statements like: block from editing and stating: last and final warning, I didn’t threat you. I accepted your apology, you didn’t accept mine. I accepted your critics, you didn’t accept mine. I answered your questions, you didn’t answer mine. I asked you politely to removeunref sign, you didn’t. I sent you kindest Christmas wishes, you ignored. You said the refs were unreliable, I agreed. I stated my Interwiki problems, you ignored me again. Now you set BarretBonden against me... I’m glad you are a friend and not an enemy. Please don’t apologise to me, because it would be embarrassing to have to accept again. Happy Christmas anyway --Huligan0 (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Trust me, I am not going to apologise for anything as I have nothing to apologise for. The reason I engaged a respected editor like BarretBonden is that I didn't want to start an edit war with you and I also thought a fresh perspective would be useful. Clearly he agreed with me which is why he removed the firing range warnings from the talk pages. --Simple Bob (talk) 10:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Dear BarretBonden, please read my suggestion. Happy Christmas --Huligan0 (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Xmas

There really is no rush if you are enjoying the seasons festivities (assuming you celebrate Xmas of course) but when you return, it would be good to know what else, if anything, needs doing to the Christchurch article. All the best--Ykraps (talk) 10:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S Thanks for all your help and guidance.

Hello, merry Christmas and a happy new year to you. I've added a few citation needed tags to the article and I don't think this is a reliable source so I've taken it out. Once these are taken care of and you've checked through the Good article criteria I don't see why it can't be taken to the GA nomination process. Barret (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll get to work on the citations shortly. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I've also removed http://www.newforestgateway.org/ which was used to reference some of the Highcliffe castle content but doesn't seem to be a reliable source. Barret (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay. Is this website all right? http://www.highcliffecastle.co.uk/home . If not I'll see if I can get a book from the library.--Ykraps (talk) 08:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
It should be ok but I've used this article from the Telegraph [23] to be on the safe side. Now I'm having difficulty finding a source which says Harry Redknapp lived in Christchurch. Barret (talk) 15:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I've been having the same trouble. All I can find is this [24] for Harry and this [25] for Jamie and I don't think either of them can be deemed to be reliable. It would be a shame to lose that bit but I'm coming round to the idea that we might have to.--Ykraps (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Barret and a Happy New Year. I see you have been busy while I've been making merry. I have put the missing citation in and corrected a few typos but other than that I don't think I have anything to add. I see you are working on something in your sandbox too. The Golden Years (Hodges) page 127 is the reference you need for the aircraft manufactured at the Airspeed/De Havilland factory. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Haha many thanks. I think the article is ready to be nominated once you've checked for any inaccuracies that I might have inadvertently added. Barret (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I've just re-read it and it appears to be accurate. I can't check all the references because some of the books I used are now back in the library but from memory and cross referencing with the 'history of..' article, they seem to be appropriate. --Ykraps (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Nominated?

Hi Barret. Have you nominated Xch for GA yet or were you waiting for me to add something else? --Ykraps (talk) 10:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

No sorry I thought you were going to. I don't have access to the book sources you added so would you like to nominate it? All you need to do is add {{subst:GAN|subtopic=Places}} to the top of Talk:Christchurch, Dorset. Barret (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Done (I think). I suppose we just sit back and wait now?--Ykraps (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes but it might be a while before anyone reviews Christchurch -- Evesham has been nominated since 2nd December and still not received a review. In the meantime could you help me find references for these sentences?
  • The Grade II listed Mayor's Parlour was built as the market hall in 1745 at the far end of the High Street but was moved to its present position in 1849.
  • The harbour is only accessible to shallow draught boats (drawing up to 4 feet (1.2 m)), due to the sandbars at the entrance.
  • A weekly market was granted to the town by Baldwin de Redvers and the first market took place in 1149 at the junction of Castle Street and the High Street.
Barret (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Barret, I didn't notice these references were missing. For Mayor's Parlour, you could use 'Hodges' (p17) or 'Moxey' (pp90-91). For the market, you could use 'Taylor' (intro) or 'Hodges' (p23). With regards to the harbour depth, this came from 'Powell', a book I have now returned to the library and so I am unable to give the page number. However http://www.dorsetforyou.com/389369 might suffice. If not, I will get another reference when I'm next in town. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
No need to apologise. I read through the article again earlier and they were just a few bits I noticed a reviewer might request citations for. These should be sufficient, thanks for your help. Barret (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BarretB/Archive_3&oldid=1144608170"