Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Yorkshire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Yorkshire Talk Page
Welcome to the Talk Page of WikiProject Yorkshire.
Please remember to remain civil and to treat all users with respect.
Please only use this page to discuss the Project, to learn more visit the Main Project Page
  
Yorkshire
Portal
Wikipedia:WikiProject Yorkshire is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the Project's assessment scale.
Archive
Archives
/Archive 1
Shortcuts:
WT:Yorks
WT:YORKS

Contents

[edit] Aims

To get the discussion started on specific aims for the project -

  • To complete tagging and assessment of all Yorkshire related articles
  • To recruit more active editors
  • To bring our top level article Yorkshire up to Featured article status
  • To bring all other top priority articles (currently 15 with 2 at FA) to at least Good article status
  • To set up a weekly or monthly selected article improvement drive
  • To produce a regular news letter for circulation to members

Any thoughts? Keith D (talk) 13:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

These aims have my support.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe these aims could now go on the project page - wait for feedback - then discuss what?, who?, when? and how? for each item.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Probably as it seems like just the two of us actively doing any work on the project. I am slowly working on the first point, currently in the West Yorkshire categories but there is South Yorkshire to tackle yet. Keith D (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Museums in Yorkshire

Could I ask for some help accessing local knowledge, from members of this wikiproject, on the behalf of the new WikiProject Museums? We are currently trying to identify articles within the Museum projects scope (& develop guidelines to help improve them etc). There is a List of museums in West Yorkshire, List of museums in South Yorkshire & List of museums in North Yorkshire. Could you take a look at the list for your local area and see if any are missing or create articles for any red links. Could you also add the new project banner "{{WikiProject Museums}}" to the Talk pages of the articles, so that we can identify those in need of work etc. Any help appreciated &, if anyone is interested you are welcome to join the project or discuss Museum related articles on the Project Talk Page.— Rod talk 14:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

There is also List of museums in the East Riding of Yorkshire. Keith D (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I've gone through the West Yorks section, adding ELs to those places which only have a red link so far, and adding a few extra, as a start. PamD (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Pam & Keith sorry I missed the East Riding.— Rod talk 15:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
And have added ELs for South Yorks PamD (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Thanks WPYorks ready

This template is now "up and running". It is only intended to be used to encourage interest from editors who have made substantial edits to Yorkshire related articles to join the project (not spamming, please!!). Please, read the documentation for Usage info.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 11:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Top priority articles

The top priority article that have been identified to date and their current ratings are as follows -

The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to GA status, also so we can concentrating our efforts on these first. There are a further 83 in the high priority category for us to tackle later on.

Keith D (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article criteria, for a quick reminder.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 08:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Just an idea - putting aside the 2 at FA and William Wilberforce which will probably be at FAC in the not too distant future - that gives us 12 articles. These fall nicely into 2 sets of 6 - cities and areas. So how about an improvement drive on the articles, alternating between the cities & areas. If we do one a month then that will take a year to get through them but knowing the amount of time it takes to get an article ready for GA I would think that anything less than a month would not be productive. Though we could cycle round them a couple of times in a year with a fortnight on each. Any thoughts? Keith D (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Or some simultaneous temporary working-groups who will concentrate on the area(s) that they know best? I wouldn't have much to say when it came to South Yorkshire, or Ripon, or Hull, for example. --GuillaumeTell 21:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
As we have so few active editors I would think that splitting up would not work too well, but I may be wrong and they are just keeping quiet. Even if we do not know the area there are still things that can be contributed for example getting hold of references for existing material, which is one of the main jobs that is required for the articles in question, verifying existing references support text etc.. Though I would agree that working on areas we know is probably best, if we have the resources, though my feeling is we are tending to be West Yorkshire orientated so working on other areas is inevitable. Also we really need someone with knowledge of an area to steer the article. Keith D (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I think both approaches have their merits and I would be willing to contribute either way. I can see that a mixture of the two will probably evolve, with editors making substantial contributions to articles where they feel they know the subject, and "odd jobbing" on others. I would like to try the article of the month approach and also retain the top priority list in a prominent place for collaborations to develop around the listed articles.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 11:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, as to the number of active editors, quite a lot of work has recently been done on quite a few articles relating to York (my primary area of interest) by a fair number of different editors, and there are others who clearly have various York articles on their watchlists and rvv before I can do it. Probably not all of these are Project members, either. I could fairly easily draw up a list and contact them individually to see what interest there might be in collaborating on mounting a push on the York article, if that seems like a good idea. GuillaumeTell 14:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to project members when I made the comments. It would be good if you could get others interested in the project or in improving a specific article. The York article is one of our top priority ones and there are a lot of related articles that people could work on if they feel that they want to stay local. Keith D (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Does Yorkshire exist?

I have raised this issue at Talk:Yorkshire

  • Does Yorkshire exist? if so, where exactly?

If not

  • When did it start and end and where was it?

I know this is a hot potato, cat among the pigeons, sleeping dog, elephant in the room issue, to use a few hackneyed terms.

Though it may not trouble us most of the time there are occasions when, because of encyclopedic requirements, we need to be specific.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Way forward?

If we are to make progress with getting the Yorkshire flagship article up to WP:FA status then we need to discuss the way forward. Some serious thought has gone into how improvements can be made but more participation is needed. I think we may be in a unique position in that the name of the article, Yorkshire is the name of a place and a culture and cultural region. How should these be distinguished in article titles so they do not conflict with WP:PLACE naming conventions?--Harkey Lodger (talk) 11:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wetherby

Hello folks,

Wetherby is in need of a little TLC. Thought I'd give you guys the heads-up! --Jza84 |  Talk  23:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lealholm

Lealholm is currently on hold for a GA review, comments are on the talk page. Any one chip in on this one as the creator appears not to be around at the moment. Keith D (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added a "Governance" section. PamD (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)