User talk:BarretB/Archive 4

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

Dorset Page

Do you know who is in charge of the Dorset task page? Thanks, Lucas,

Lord Castellan Creed (talk) 15:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

There's nobody in charge. Some of the busier projects have elected coordinators but this one is fairly quiet and has an insufficient number of active participants. If you need help with anything feel free to ask me or you can leave a message on the Dorset Wikiproject talk page. I've left a menu of links on your talk page which you might find useful. Barret (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply,
I am slowly getting used to wikipedia, certain things are a odd design. I think the project could do with waking up, at least enough to allow the semi active banner to be removed,
Thanks,
Lucas,
Lord Castellan Creed (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors

Hey, I saw your edits recently on my watchlist and clicked over to your user page and was impressed. Have you considering applying to become a Wikipedia:Online Ambassadors? It is a great way to help college students become more familiar with Wikipedia, and make them good long term contributers! Sadads (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I think the program is a great idea but it's not something I'm interested in participating in at the moment. Regards. Barret (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Dorset

Hi Barret,

I am of the opinion that the Dorset article should be the flagship of the Dorset Wikiproject and so I was disappointed to note that it is rated B class, having once been a featured article. I tried to find out why it had been demoted without success so I intend to put it up for peer review to see if anything can be done to improve it. I hope you are in agreement and that you might also find some time to contribute (I know you are an admin now and have other projects too). Regards--Ykraps (talk) 14:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It was promoted to FA status back in 2005 when FA criteria and reviews were much less stringent [1]. The article underwent an FA review [2] last October but there wasn't much response and article's main contributors, Rossenglish and Steinsky, haven't edited in years. I've had a brief look and the article seems well written but some sections contain out of date content and the main isssue is the lack of sources. I'm currently working on another article off-line so I'll take a more detailed look at Dorset later this week but I don't think it would take too much work to bring this up to GA status. By the way, I'm not an admin (too much additional stress for no extra pay).
On an unrelated note, I think you'll be interested in the discussion below. Barret (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about the admin mix up. I think you were granted some additional rights and I confused that with an admin role. Anyway at least Dorset looks fixable so I'll start looking for sources soon. Re the conversation below: It would be a pity if the review process for Christchurch, Dorset has stalled. I had high hopes after the initial comments.--Ykraps (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

GAN review

FYI WT:GAN#Largely abandoned reviews by TeacherA. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Christchurch, Dorset/GA1

Have you anything?--Ykraps (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No it looks good to me. Barret (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Good Article

I suspect you are watching but just in case, this is to let you know that Christchurch made 'good article' status yesterday. Thanks for all your help with it.--Ykraps (talk) 07:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I've been to Christchurch several times but didn't really know much about it so its been fascinating to learn about the town and its history while working on the article. Barret (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

For your assistance

The Guidance Barnstar
For making me feel welcome and showing me how things work. I wouldn't have been able to produce a quality article without your help. Ykraps (talk) 07:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sandboxes

Hi Barret,

I have been struggling to find references for much of the Dorset article (even though I have a copy of Cullingford's book) and so will probably have to rewrite much of it. I don't want to make drastic changes without consensus so I've been trying to create a sandbox, which I think I have now done, here. It is my intention to copy the Dorset article, or sections of it to this user space so I can work on it without disturbing the real thing. Is that an acceptable thing to do?--Ykraps (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC) ‎

Hello Ykraps, muchas gracias for the barntsar =). I've had the same problem with the Dorset article. Although most of the education section is probably accurate I haven't been able to find any decent sources for it online. There's nothing wrong with copying the article to your userspace but I think you'll need to provide attribution in your edit summary when you transfer it to your sandbox (for example "creating page with content copied from Dorset" or something similar) -- see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Barret (talk) 07:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I will make a start soon. Sorry for being slow to acknowledge your answer, I have been away.--Ykraps (talk) 09:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I have frequently copied and pasted existing Wiki articles into my sandbox userspace so i can experiment with making radical changes over a period of time in relative seclusion. If and when i can develop my new version to a mature, fairly polished state i then copy and paste back to the main wiki article, making sure that i pick up any changes that have been made to the wiki article in the meantime. I also often have a link to the userspace article on the Wiki article talk page to let others know that an experimental version of the article (or sometimes just a section) is being worked on, inviting constructive comments that could be put on the userspace article talk page.--Penbat (talk) 10:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Penbat.--Ykraps (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of my photo

You have to say my license for the file Kakápressconference.JPG is not correct. Well, before deleting it you should have had a word with me. Look any picture that can be copied from Realmadrid.com just by right-clicking it is a picture that others can use so I took it like that, but since I didn't get a license that fits into my category, I had to use something and so I used the screenshot license. Zahir 06:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I notified you with these two messages left on your talk page [3] [4]. Did you not see them? The image File:Kakápressconference.JPG hasn't been deleted -- you still have 6 days to add a valid license. However, it is obviously a copyrighted image so it will most likely be deleted. I suggest you re-read the advice and links to relevent Wikipedia policy which several users have left on your talk page instead of ignoring and deleting them. Barret (talk) 13:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You said that - "You have uploaded another copyrighted image you've found on the web [1]. The license you added to the file is incorrect so I have removed it" and when I checked the the link it was gone. You just restored it. Can you tell me properly what's wrong? I'm new here. What licence can be put for a photo like that? I mean at Realmadrid.com, anything you can take by copy-pasting is an image other people can copy and use for themselves. Zahir 12:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I cannot delete or restore anything because I'm not an administrator. I have attempted to explain this issue with your images before - have a look at this older version of you talk page [5]. I'll try again... most images found on the internet will be subject to copyright (for example if you look at the bottom of any page on RealMadrid.com it will say "© Copyright Real Madrid Club de Fútbol"). Just because you can save an image to your computer doesn't mean it isn't protected by copyright should you wish to reuse it. Very few copyrighted images are allowed on Wikipedia - see WP:NFCI and WP:NFC#UUI for more details. You can only add a valid license for this image if you can show that you have permission from the copyright holder, otherwise uploading the image is a copyright violation. If you want to attempt to obtain permission I suggest you follow the guide on Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission but you will have to contact either the photographer or Real Madrid and it's extremely unlikely you will succeed. Read these links: Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Image use policy, Wikipedia:Finding images tutorial.
Your signature should contain at least one internal link to your user page or user talk page. Are you using four tildes (like this: ~~~~)? --Barret (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Chickerell page

Why have you deleted a load of fact and useful information that I put on to the Chickerell page today?

Darzet boy (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)darzet boyDarzet boy (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Barret, I have left a message on this user's talk page which you might like to read before replying. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance there Ykraps. Barret (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Weymouth and Chickerell

I wrote about Chickerell facts because

I was born in Weymouth in 1962. Weymouth is in South Dorset and is in Weymouth & Portland

I have however lived in the parish of Chickerell in West Dorset a number of times since 1970

If you want to edit peoples posts (and remove facts like postal address)then why not edit Weymouth's entry and add about Whitehead's torpeado factory at Ferry Bridge (which became Wellworthy's) and the MOD torpedo range at Newtons Cove.

But I guess being a Dorset expert, you already know those facts

Please be good enough to re-enter the details that I spent my time entering to the Chickerell entry

Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darzet boy (talk • contribs) 21:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I know you're edits to Chickerell were made in good faith but I'm not going to fully restore your edits to the article for the reasons explained to you on your talk page. I encourage you to read the pages linked on your talk page, particularly the core content policies of verifiability and no original research. I've added some details to the article about the town council and its wards, plus references in the form of inline citations. However, although its probably true, I've not been able to find a source for the claim that "The town has the postal address of Weymouth, due to Weymouth being the Royal Mail sorting office that delivers to Chickerell".
If there is anything else you want to add to Wikipedia please go ahead (articles aren't owned by anyone) but be aware that anyone can edit your contributions and anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed. If you need help with anything feel free to leave me another note here and I'll be happy to help. Barret (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Dorset

Hi Barret, I see you are taking a break, I hope you return refreshed soon. I have been working on the history section of the Dorset page here and I think I'm about done. Sadly I had to delete some of it as I was unable to find references but I have added some stuff too (probably too much!). When you get back, perhaps you could let me know what you think? Regards--Ykraps (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello Ykraps, my wikipediholism has drawn me back. I've had a look at your draft and these are my thoughts:
  • Add that Dorset became part of the Saxon Kingdom of Wessex?
  • Do you know how many of Judge Jefferys 312 cases in Dorchester were sentenced to death?
  • Perhaps add a little bit more detail about the Monmouth Rebellion in Dorset.
  • If you can find sources, the first recorded use and origins of the name Dorsetshire need to be mentioned somewhere. For example, Somerset (FA class) contains a toponymy section dedicated this.
  • I think it needs some more 19th & 20th century history -- History of Dorset might give you some ideas.
  • In the Roman era, settlements moved from the hill tops to the valleys, and the hilltops had been abandoned by the fourth century. -- could do with a source.
  • In order to keep this section as succinct as possible I would consider trimming these bits and possibly relocating them elsewhere in the article:
Men from Dorset were instrumental in the colonisation of the New World including George Somers from Lyme Regis who discovered Bermuda and Christopher Farwell from Poole who was present when Sir Humphrey Gilbert landed in Newfoundland. Other notable mariners from Dorset include: Henry Digby, Charles Bullen and Thomas Masterman Hardy all of whom commanded ships at Trafalgar and played a major part in the victory.
The production of cloth was a profitable business in Dorset during the 17th and 18th centuries. Blandford became famous for its bonelace and Stalbridge for its stockings. Shaftsbury, Sturminster Marshall, Beamister, Burton Bradstock, Gillingham, Cerne Abbas and Winterbourne Stickland produced a wide variety of materials between them, including sailcloth, linen and even silk.
...and a plaque above the ice-house door where it took place commemorates the event
Large amounts of the stone were used in the construction of Salisbury Cathedral. Another mediaeval industry, which continues today, was the manufacture of rope
In 1747 a notorious gang of armed smugglers broke into the customs house in Poole to reclaim their captured contraband
Barret (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Barret, welcome back and thanks for your thoughts.
It should be fairly easy to find a reliable source that puts Dorset in the kingdom of Wessex but I struggled to find a reference for the first recorded use of the name Dorset and reluctantly had to remove that bit. I'll have another look and if I can find one, I'll put it back.
The bloody assizes wasn't quite as bloody as the name suggests; only a small proportion were executed, most were deported. I'm not sure of the exact figures as I have taken the book back to the library but I'll pick it up next time I'm in town.
I think adding a bit more about the Monmouth rebellion is a good idea. I believe he landed at Lyme Regis so that ought to be mentioned at least.
The transfer of settlements from the hill tops to the valleys was another bit I couldn't find a reference for. I thought I'd taken that bit out!? If you think that bit is worth keeping, I'll continue to look for a source.
I thought you might think it needed trimming :). I think I was trying to give equal coverage to each period of history and so ended up adding stuff for the sake of it. Although, as you've pointed out, I completely overlooked the 20th century.
I'll take another look as soon as I've been to the library. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 11:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way, do you think this [[6]] is a reliable source? --Ykraps (talk) 23:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

If you can't find a source for the "hilltops had been abandoned by the fourth century" don't worry just chop it out it's not essential. It doesn't look like that link is a reliable source (I can't tell who wrote the article or what sources they used) which is a pity because it contains some useful info. Barret (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly.
I've referenced everything I can, and removed everything I can't. I've also added/removed bits as discussed above. Anything else?--Ykraps (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
No it looks good and it's fully supported by reliable sources -- transfer it to the article if you think it's ready. Barret (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I think I know how to do that.--Ykraps (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Done! On to the geography section then!--Ykraps (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Geography of Dorset

Hi Barret, hope you are well. If you get a moment perhaps you'd like to look at User:Ykraps/Sandbox 2, where I've been working on the geography section of the Dorset article. I welcome your comments as always. Best regards--Ykraps (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Everything that needs a citation appears to have one and the sources are good. I can't think of anything else to add, except maybe something about the rivers in Dorset, and a mention of Old Harry Rocks. There seems to be some repetition in the first two paragraphs -- are you planning to merge them? I don't think Poole Pottery is using local clays any more (the factory is now in Staffordshire) so perhaps this should be removed or changed to past tense. This source might be of some use if you haven't already seen it [7]. Barret (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments and the DFY link. I looked at it briefly when I was searching for references but now I've seen it again I feel there's some interesting stuff that could go in the article. I see what you mean about the repetition, I hadn't read it through properly so I'll take another look at that. Now you mention it, I do remember hearing about the pottery. As it doesn't have much to do with geology now, perhaps it should go in another section?--Ykraps (talk) 08:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I've added a bit about Old Harry and the rivers of Dorset as you suggested and deleted some of the repeated phrases. Anything else?--Ykraps (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think Poole Pottery needs to be included in the article. Do you think it's worth adding this map to the section? I can't think of anything else -- once again you've done an excellent job. Are you moving on to the demography section next? Barret (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I like the map a great deal but I'm wondering whether there is room for two images in the section because of the position of the infobox. If we can only fit one image in, do you have a preference? I hadn't thought about what section to work on next but demography seems as good as any.--Ykraps (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I prefer the map but if you're planning on taking this article to GAN a reviewer might question the vague source description "based on 1904 map". Does the infobox protrude into the geography section on your screen? It doesn't on mine but my screen size might be a different to yours. I've noticed the lead needs expanding -- if another paragraph was added this might solve the infobox problem. Barret (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Barret. I've managed to squeeze both images in but if you feel it's too much feel free to remove the picture of Durdle Door. Nice though it is, I think the map is more appropriate and adds a lot more interest. My plan would be to take the article to GAN but if it's questioned we can always swap back. The infobox encroaches quite a way into geology section on my screen, right to the top of the first image. It concerns me slightly because I recall a peer review that that picked me up on 'sandwiching' text. In any event, I think the lead needs expanding too but perhaps I will leave that until later when I've a better idea of the contents of the article. It doesn't really sum up the article like it should; some of it isn't in the main article and is unreferenced.--Ykraps (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Demography of Dorset

Hello Barret. Since starting work here, I've discovered that I can't retrieve the information cited in much of section. Can you check the links quickly to make sure it's not me? It looked well referenced at a quick glance so I thought it was just a question of expansion but now I think a rewrite is probably required. If that's the case, I will do what I have done with the previous sections and copy it to a sandbox. As you know, Bmth and Poole are UAs and so much of the information about Dorset (the county) is in 3 different places. Am I allowed to combine figures from DCC, Poole and Bmth? For example if 5% of the population of Dorset (the authority) are green, 6% of Poole are green and 7% of Bmth are green; can I say 6% of Dorset (the county) are green (5+6+7/3)?--Ykraps (talk) 09:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Which links aren't working for you? It looks like there has been an attempt to salvage references 88 and 89 with archive.org but the archived pages don't look very stable. The links at http://www.dorsetforyou.com/statistics should allow you to replace these sources. I don't know if this will help but I also found statistics for Dorset by searching within the boundaries of Dorset education authority on the ONS website [8] but this excludes Poole and Bournemouth which can be found here [9] [10]. I don't think it will be a problem if you combine figures (see WP:CALC). Have you thought about adding a table similar to the one in Somerset's demography section? The image of Poole Quay doesn't seem very relevant. Barret (talk) 09:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Barret. References 88 and 89 take an inordinate amount of time to come down if they come down at all. Even if I get them, clicking on anything brings up Wayback Machine which informs me that no archive is available. Reference 87 doesn't seem to support the information in the section. The figures given have since been updated and although this is really easy to fix, I can find no reference to Dorset having "...the 3rd highest mortality rate behind E.Sussex and Devon".
I am unsure as to the best way to proceed with this section. The article is about the county of Dorset so this section should include information about Bournemouth and Poole. Adding the corresponding figures for the UAs will make the prose clumsy but on the otherhand referencing will be clearer. Trying to combine the references as discussed above will make following them confusing. Do you know of any other counties that have the same issue, preferably one's that have acheived GA status, so we can get an idea of what works best?--Ykraps (talk) 09:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC) Scrap that! I see that Somerset also has two UAs.

PS I agree that the image of Poole Quay should go.

Yes. I think that table solves multiple issues.--Ykraps (talk) 10:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Barret. Do you want to take a look at Dorset's demography section and see if anything else needs adding or changing?--Ykraps (talk) 11:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I've had a quick look, it's certainly a major improvement. Although 10 years old I think it would be better to use the 2001 census figures for population with an explanation that this is likely to have risen to the 2009 mid year estimates. The stats in the table seem to be a mixture of the 2001 census and more recent estimates, and a source next the every figure in the table seems a bit overkill and a little distracting - would it be better to just use the 2001 census and have one reference at the top of each column (similar to the Somerset table)? I also think it would be useful to have an additional column in the table for England or Great Britain so the figures can be compared to the national averages. These aren't major issues - let me know what you think. Barret (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back. Just to clarify, are you suggesting that 2001 figures should be used throughout the section? For example, in paragraphs 3 & 4 there is more recent information regarding a change to the traditional patterns of population growth which wouldn't be shown if we used the 2001 figures. Any thoughts about whether it's worth keeping? I don't feel strongly about it, just found it quite interesting. I thought the table a bit messy too but thought it important to show exactly where the figures came from. I was once criticised because my references didn't take the reviewer to the exact location of the information but I see Somerset has just given this address [11] instead of giving this [12] for religion, and this [13] for ethnicity. As this appears to be acceptable I will do likewise. Somerset has also given figures for the SW region, shall we do the same?--Ykraps (talk) 07:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
The changes you've made are more or less what I had in mind. I would usually make sure the reference links directly to cited material but Somerset passed FAC which is usually very thorough. If a reviewer picks up on this in the future it's easy enough to add the references back. Barret (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Economy

Ah! I see now how zooming in and out alters the layout of the page quite dramatically. Your recent resizing of the table in the demography section looked a bit of mess on my screen but when I zoom in it looks okay. Same with the infobox (as discussed earlier) which now no longer intrudes into the geology section. I have been working under the assumption that what I see is what everyone else sees but this is clearly not the case! Anyway, I've been working on the economy section and wondered whether you had a view on the relevance of the 2012 olympics to this section. Undoubtedly it will bring wealth into that part of the county but the paragraph doesn't say that. I feel that if it is to stay, it should be rewritten to stress the economic importance of the event. Any thoughts?--Ykraps (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree it needs to be re-written perhaps with details of expected visitor numbers and value to the local economy if possible. (Some useful sources for the section: [14] [15] [16] [17] tourism: [18] [19]). I've noticed the section mentions Dorset County Hospital but not the larger hospitals in Bournemouth and Poole which presumably employ more people. Do you think the military presence in Dorset should be mentioned (Hamworthy, Blandford, Bovington)? BTW I don't know if you're aware of this but you can also adjust your screen resolution if you go to start > control panel > display > settings (or something similar & assuming you're using Windows). Barret (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the links to the useful websites. As tourism is so important, I think that bit requires some expansion. I've moved the paragraph about 2012 to the culture section, I don't know whether it belongs there or not but I didn't want to delete it completely; and I've written a short sentence re the likely effect on the local economy. Do you think that will suffice? The main focus of the article appears to be the administrative county of Dorset (I have been gradually changing this) so I think that is why Dorchester Hospital was mentioned and no other. I wondered whether to delete that bit or expand it to include RBH and Poole hospital, I am wary of writing too much, as usual :). I thought too about adding a bit about the military but wasn't sure what to say to ensure it remains in an economic context. Obviously the soldiers and marines spend money in the towns but their presence also creates employment for civilians and probably attracts businesses with MOD contracts to the area (such as BAE Systems). Of course sources need to be found to support this.--Ykraps (talk) 07:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S. No, I didn't know how to change the screen resolution. Perhaps I'll play about with that later.

Yep I think that's sufficient. I've been trying to add bits to this section myself but it seems to be one of the more difficult sections to write - I can find lots of statistics but little inspiration for other content. The manufacturing paragraph at the end needs a reference but I'm not what year those statistics are from or whether it's accurate anymore. I think the Abbotsbury barn image should be chopped out - do you have any plans to replace it or add a table? Barret (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Barret. I've not edited the Dorset page for a couple of days as I have been involved elsewhere but prior to that I was considering: adding another sentence or two about tourism (it is such a large industry it deserves a bit more), losing the sentence about Dorchester hospital (I couldn't find corresponding figures for Poole and Royal Bournemouth hospitals) and losing the current image. I haven't settled on what, if anything, should replace it. Initially I considered something to do with farming, perhaps some local sheep? The Dorset Horn is a very well known breed apparently. But I'm open to suggestions. I hadn't thought about a table. What had you in mind, something similar to the one on the Christchurch page?--Ykraps (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC) P.S. I had a source that supported the 'Dorset has little in the way of manufacturing' sentence but didn't write it down. I am confident I can find something though.

I was initially thinking about a table which showed employment by industry in Dorset from the 2001 census [20] but I think it'll be too large. I found some other statistics here [21] which could be displayed in a table similar to the one below (although I've noticed the statistics vary from those given in this source [22]). Otherwise another picture will probably suffice - if you're still looking for a farming connection perhaps something like this [23] (oops - that's Wiltshire). Barret (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Dorset's employment structure (2008)
Industry Dorset CC [24] Poole UA [25] Bournemouth UA [26] Great Britain
Manufacturing 11.9% 15.8% 3.2% 10.2%
Construction 5.3% 4.6% 3.2% 4.8%
Services 81.5% 79% 93.1% 83.5%
Tourism-related 10.2% 7.7% 12% 8.2%
Note: excludes self-employed, government-supported trainees and HM Forces
I've spent some time looking at the figures and I still can't sufficiently explain the discrepancies. At first I thought it was due to confusion over the county and the authority but if that was the case manufacturing for the county would be a little over 10% and not the 11% quoted here: [27]. I then looked to see if one set of figures was referring to 'residents of Dorset employed in manufacturing (not necessarily within the county)' and the other to 'the number of manufacturing jobs available within the county (where not all employees are local); but drew a blank there also. Both sets of stats give their source as the ABI (now ABS) of 2008 and I'm beginning to think that the figures at DFY are in error. I like your table a lot and think we should use it, changing the sentence in the section (and its reference) so it doesn't appear to contradict the table. I am going to remove the sentence regarding GDP as I'm unable to reference (partly because GVA is now more commonly used). I have been desperately looking for another short sentence re manufacturing to finish the section, any ideas? --Ykraps (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Right! Those figures relate to the number of jobs, which is why the figures total more than 100% because some jobs fit into more than one category. These figures http://www.boroughofpoole.com/downloads/assets/FINAL_ISSUED_BDP_Workspace~for_web.pdf (page 77) and http://www.poole.gov.uk/downloads/assets/Raising_the_Game.pdf (page 24), refer to the percentage of industry (and thus add up to 100). For the sake of avoiding this discussion with everyone who queries the table, I suggest we use the percentage of industry figures, if you think the source is valid.--Ykraps (talk) 06:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
And the category is tourism! I didn't notice the dotted line and 'related' bit. Okay, lets go with it. Hopefully not everyone is as slow as me and we won't get too many queries.--Ykraps (talk) 17:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed the columns don't add up to 100%. Perhaps the tourism-related bit should be chopped off to avoid confusion. I've added a note to the table to make it clear why services, construction and manufacturing totals don't add up to 100% either. I agree the manufacturing paragraph could do with another sentence. I've been looking through a few sources but can't think of anything to add at the moment. Barret (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I've just this second added it to the Dorset page. I will retrieve it.--Ykraps (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it necessary to remove the 'tourism related' figures but it would be good if that row was a different colour.--Ykraps (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm about done with this section but please feel free to tweak it. I am not completely sold on the image Bournemouth beach so if you want to remove or replace it, that's okay with me too.--Ykraps (talk) 07:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I've added a note for the tourism column rather than change the colour. I think the image of a busy Bournemouth beach is relevant to the tourism paragraph so I don't have a problem with it. Barret (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the added notes help. Does the caption for the image need references? The information is in the section if you add two figures together. I think the culture section will be bit of a challenge. I've already started looking for references.--Ykraps (talk) 07:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the captain needs a reference if the associated text in the section is sourced, but I've noticed the '14.6 million day visitors' sentence is unsourced. If you're planning on working on the culture section next do you think any of these should be added?

I think many of the people in the final two paragraphs could be removed - lists of famous people who have no major connection to Dorset apart from the fact that they might have lived there for a short time seems a bit like listcruft. There also seems to be too much info about non-notable rugby teams. I'll trim this if you have no objections. Barret (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'd already thought about listed buildings and museums. Certainly the tank museum and military museum in Dorchester deserve a mention. We ought to include the festivals you've mentioned and the media too. William Barnes is already in the section as a resident so I assume you're suggesting a short sentence about how he 'championed' the Dorset dialect in his poetry? I really struggled to find references for Dorset's motto & flag (I don't know why, they both seem to be everywhere). Yes, Dorset knob could do with a plug; any thoughts about Dorset Blue Vinney? Please do trim the section about sport. I think the last 2 paragraphs could do with a proper haircut (excuse the analogy) but this might sort itself out when I try to reference it. I was thinking that Robert Louis Stevenson actually lived in Hampshire as he was a resident of Westbourne prior to 1974. What do you think? Worth hanging onto?--Ykraps (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes that's exactly what I was thinking about Barnes and Dorset dialect. The county motto isn't too important but I've found some sources for the flag and written a draft here. If we're adding Dorset Knob I don't see why Blue Vinney shouldn't be mentioned. However, I don't think either are a high priority to add to the section - its quite long already. Stevenson's inclusion is a bit dubious. I would be tempted to remove him in order to create more space for other info. Barret (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Culture

This section seems to be growing rapidly. Do you think it's worth creating Culture of Dorset? We still have to add your item about the flag, local media coverage, Dorset dialect, William Barnes, "who's afear'd". The stuff I've added so far doesn't go into much detail either.--Ykraps (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

If we are going to trim the section then I think a new sub-article is necessary. I've written another draft but it was done before you added the dialect info - any thoughts? I've omitted local media because it seems to be more complicated than I thought with the tv/radio situation [29] and I had some difficulty finding decent sources. Barret (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Looks good. It reads much better (apart from one typo) and the images are fitting. We might be able to squeeze a short sentence about dialect in, but I don't think it should be much longer. I think we should preserve what's there by moving it to 'Culture of' and insert your draft into the article. The new 'culture of' article can be expanded at a later date.--Ykraps (talk) 01:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I've copied content to User:Ykraps/Culture of Dorset, England for safe keeping so you can add your draft anytime. I've also found references for Douglas Adams and Ian Fleming.--Ykraps (talk) 09:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I've moved my draft over to the article. Did you want to add any of the information you found about Dorset dialect? Thomas Love Peacock was born in Dorset but I think he moved away at an early age so I cut him out. I also removed P.D. James because although some of her novels are set in Dorset, couldn't find a source that confirmed she ever lived there. I think she is one of several famous authors who were inspired by Dorset but never actually lived there (see [30]) so perhaps that's something which could be included in the sub-article. Barret (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I wish I'd read your comments earlier, I spent a considerable amount of time trying to reference PD James myself. There's plenty to suggest she visited the county and it inspired a number of her novels, so with some editing it could stay in the sub-article. I found refs for Le Carre and Sharpe but I see you have too. :) I've added a bit about dialect and tried to make it as succinct as possible but feel free to remove it if you think it makes the paragraph too clumsy.--Ykraps (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Settlements and Communications

Hi Barret, I think I've finished referencing the settlements section and have now moved onto the transport section. The section states however that, "The A303, A31 and A35 trunk roads run through the county...............There are no major trunk routes to the North". Firstly I'm not convinced the A303 is in Dorset, and secondly, if it does just clip the county, it appears to do so in the North. [[31]] Any thoughts or further info I've missed?--Ykraps (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it probably means, going in a northerly direction.--Ykraps (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW when I wrote,"Bournemouth, the most populous town in the conurbation, is also the youngest" I meant it was the youngest town in the conurbation. However this was uncited and ambiguous so I'm not bothered that you removed it.--Ykraps (talk) 23:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Oops I misread that bit about Bournemouth. I think the A303 does just clip the north of the county. Perhaps its worth mentioning the A350 and the A37 which both run northwards and expanding the descriptions of the trunk roads? I'm not convinced the 'super-fast' broadband paragraph is important enough to remain in the article - would you object if it was removed so the section can concentrate solely on transport? I've started a draft for the politics section. You're welcome to edit or suggest any changes. Barret (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I have had a quick look at your draft and it looks in good shape. I think the superfast broadband bit can go, particularly as it may only be temporary and broadband connection in rural Dorset is dire! I'll take another look at the trunk roads sentence and see if I can't expand it a bit more. I have been struggling for material and reliable sources for much of this section and the previous one. I spent a lot of time trying to find a source that says Bournemouth is the only airport in Dorset and all I could find was this [[32]] and this [[33]]. Bournemouth Airport appear to have updated their website and removed a lot of the information we used in the Christchurch article which is a bit annoying. Not to worry about the misunderstanding, I just found it mildly amusing that I was confusedby someone elses contributions while my contributions were confusing others.--Ykraps (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
This section doesn't need too many sources because most of the information is unlikely to be challenged. I would just re-write that sentence about Bournemouth Airport and add a bit more detail. I think one international airport is more than most counties have. Reading through the article I noticed the sentence "Until recently Pilsdon Pen was thought to be the highest hill in Dorset, but recent surveys have shown nearby Lewesdon Hill to be higher" - do you have a more precise date for the survey? Barret (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
That sentence was already in the article and I just used the book to reference it, so I'm not entirely sure if a date was given or not. I think though that I would probably have included it if it had been. I don't think the book even said what survey but I am assuming it was an O.S. one. I have had a quick look online but can't find any further information. The book was published in 2004 and used the word, 'recent'. I will check the book again next time I'm in town.--Ykraps (talk) 09:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
This was written in April 1997 [[34]]--Ykraps (talk) 10:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Barret. I've run out of things to say in the transport section. Is there anything else add? Or perhaps you think it needs a trim :).--Ykraps (talk) 07:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I've made a few small adjustments but I'll take a more in-depth look later. A brief bit about the Swanage Railway is the only thing I can think to add. I would be tempted to remove the sentence concerning community transport (it doesn't seem an important part of the county's transport infrastructure) and the claim that Bournemouth Airport passenger numbers will rise to 3,000,000. It was made in 2007 but passenger numbers have actually dropped each year since then to around 700,000 (see Bournemouth Airport article). Thanks for your help with the highest point in Dorset but you've probably noticed I've re-written that sentence to remove the need for the survey date. Barret (talk) 10:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I've made the changes you suggested. Have you finished working on the politics section?--Ykraps (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes I've finished with the politics section. I'm going to attempt to make a start on the education section next. Are you planning to move on to another area of the article? Barret (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I think the only bit left for me is the lead so I'll work on that. I don't think there's too much to do except add another paragraph or two, remove references and make sure everything is mentioned in the main text. If you need a hand with anything else give us a shout. I assume you've seen the sources left on the talk page by Fluffernutter?--Ykraps (talk) 06:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Yep I saw fluffernutter's post and I've made a start on the section in my userspace. I think the article still needs a short toponymy section. I've found a few bits of info searching google books but I'll have a look in the library for something more substantial. Barret (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Barret, I see you've been busy. I agree the article needs something about toponymy but I struggled to find anything. If I get an opportunity this weekend, I'll check out my local library too. I notice you've set up an archive for the talk page. How does that work? Is it similar to a folder in Windows, where you just drag and drop stuff or does a bot do it for you?--Ykraps (talk) 07:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I found some interesting stuff at the library but nothing on the toponymy of Dorset :( I have rewritten the intro here: User:Ykraps/Sandbox 3 if you want to take a look. It's 3 paragraphs and everything is mentioned in the main text. I'm not sure about the prose, so feel free to change it if you wish.--Ykraps (talk) 11:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

A bot can be set up to automatically archive talk pages but the Dorset talk page isn't used very frequently so I just moved it manually (copy and paste). A detailed how-to guide can be found here: Help:Archiving a talk page.
I have a few suggestions for the lead. I would remove death rates, birth rates and migrants (this can fluctuate and just seems a bit out of place to me) and add a sentence about the ceremonial county and unitary authorities. Something like "the ceremonial county borders include a non-metropiltan county, which is governed by Dorset County Council, and the unitary authorities of Poole and Bournemouth." I think "regarded as a quiet county" should be removed or reworded (its probably true but its an unattributed opinion and a bit vague). I think it over-emphasises the importance of Portland Harbour. Change this to include the other harbours, e.g. "the harbours at Weymouth, Portland and Poole were major embarkation points for the D-Day landings of the Normandy Invasion"? I'm not sure if the training exercises at Studland are important enough to be mentioned in the lead. The arrival of the black death in England in Weymouth could be added to this paragraph but it seems to have been omitted from the history section (I will add when I have time).
I think I've found enough info to write a short section for toponymy. Barret (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I've made the changes you have suggested and added a bit about the black death to main article. As always, feel free to change anything.--Ykraps (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
The middle paragraph could do with another sentence just to pad it out but I can't think of what to add right now. Something could always be added at a later time so if you're happy with it then I think its ready to replace the current lead. Barret (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I wanted to add something about the civil war but as there's not much in the article, I thought that would involve expanding the main text. That could be done of course (something about the Dorset clubmen, perhaps?) but do we want to increase the size of the history section?--Ykraps (talk) 07:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it would be a problem to add a bit more about the civil war. I've been looking at this section lately and I'm tempted to make a few adjustments and move over some bits to the History of Dorset sub-article. Barret (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I have not been able to find any suitable sources online regarding the civil war. I was particularly looking for the seiges at Corfe and Lyme, and the rout of the clubmen at Hambledon Hill. I will pay another visit to the library anon or would you now prefer to avoid further expansion of that section?--Ykraps (talk) 06:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I've borrowed a copy of Cullingford's A History of Dorset from the library which has some details about the clubmen (I noticed you've added some bits about Corfe and Lyme Regis today). I'll try to add a bit more sometime this week. Barret (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I've added a bit about the clubmen now too. I've also written a section for the HOD page so you can alter or delete anything I've added. Even I'm beginning to think this section is too large now :).--Ykraps (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Message to me...???

Hello, I just did a Google search on a topic that is new to me, and clicked to read the following page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ac.woodsworth.jpg

At the top of the page, there is an orange box that says: "You have a new message" - totally confused, I clicked on it, and read the following: "Information.png Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Benkendorf has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Barret (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)"

I never made any edit to the Benkendorf page, and if I had, it certainly would not have been the inane comment that was shown. If you keep any sort of "IP database", can you please correct mine...?

Thank You! 98.195.58.96 (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello. The message was left over 9 months ago and was probably intended for someone else who was using the IP address at that time. There's a log of every edit made from your IP (Special:Contributions/98.195.58.96) but there's no database that I can 'correct'. If you would like to avoid irrelevant messages in the future you could create an account. Barret (talk) 23:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

History section.

Hi Barret,

I have copied all the information from the history section of the Dorset page, to the History of Dorset article (I think). Do you still want to give it a trim? My thoughts are that you could lose some (maybe not all) of the following sentences:

'These populations used tools and fire to clear areas of forest....'
'Further clearances took place in the Bronze age.............'
'Although where the soils were poor......'
'Roman roads radiated out from Dorchester and the hill fort at Badbury.....'
'Over the next few centuries settlers established a pattern of farming....'
'A smaller force of 2000 regrouped on Hambledon Hill......'

And probably some more besides. What would be the ideal length for this section? --Ykraps (talk) 08:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I notice you haven't edited for a while, I hope you are well. I have trimmed the History section as outlined above but feel free to revert my edits if you don't agree. I am away for up to a fortnight soon and probably won't have access to the internet but when I return, if I haven't heard from you, I will probably nominate Dorset for GA, if only for the additional feedback. I have also created Culture of Dorset, England. I have copied some stuff from the Dorset article including some of your material which I hope I have given sufficient credit for, but I have also added quite a lot of new information which I hope you will find interesting. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 13:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Dorset is a Good Article!

Dorset is now officially a Good Article. Thanks for all the time and effort you have put into it. Regards --Ykraps (talk) 09:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

PS I hope you are just taking a break and will be back here soon.
Hello Ykraps, congratulations on getting Dorset through GAN. Apologies for not responding sooner - personal circumstances have prevented me from editing wikipedia for a while and now I don't really have much motivation to edit as much as I did before. Barret (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
No need for apologies, you are absolutely right to deal with things in the real world first and I hope things are resolved for you shortly.--Ykraps (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm sorry I deleted those comments from your talk page. I was just trying to remove unnecessary stuff I wrote on other's talk pages. Zahir (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

No worries. If you want me to remove your comments just ask. Otherwise I'll archive them with the rest of this page eventually. Barret (talk) 17:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Belle Vue logo.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Belle Vue 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Long Eaton Speedway

Hi BarretBonden, I have reinserted and renamed link as I believe its relevant to the article. Regards --palmiped |  Talk  17:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be superfluous because there is already a coordinates template in this article that links to the same map. Barret (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BarretB/Archive_4&oldid=1139825687"