User talk:Timtrent/Archive 3

This archive page is managed by Werdnabot.

Back to my main talk page and index of archives

King George's Field template

Hi Tim, I hope you don't mind me messing around with the template. I adjusted the code to allow the county categories to be included too. Actually, my main reasoning was so the lists in the King George's Field category would be classified under the first letter of their county rather than under L for list. However, as I plodded throught the changes i noticed two oddities. Your choice for greater london over London while correct leads to the problem that there is no greater london category. I left it as London for now. I was surprised you had the two usages of Avon too. While i realise that avon was the original county when the fields were inorgorated i don't understand why they would still be classified as being in Avon. Shouldn't this just be a footnote or not even mention at all? David D. (Talk) 03:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Mind? Heavens no. I think this is an excellent idea, and precisely what the template is for.

As for the county use, I fear it was "Hmm, now precisely where shall I put this?", and I regret I was inconsistent, in a way. I tried to thijnk about county boundaries being moved for political reasons and thus the most static "place" to catalogue. And I struggled. If you feel like being bold since you appear to be a better geographer thna I you will get no objections from me.  :)

While you are looking at this, do you think you could bring a wise eye to the mediation cabal case about individual locations and categorising them? I've featured it at the Village Pump with a request for people to assist, but it appears to be attracting "no takers". Someone else who is interested, such as you, may be able to assist in the resolution.

Fiddle Faddle 07:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I probably won't be adding new fields this is a little outside my area. i did see your note on the village pump which is why I looked at the category in the first place. My first observation was that everything was categorised on L. One thing led to another. It took me a while to figure out the template but it is an excellent idea for this class of repetitive article. Now you can change them all just by tweeking the template, sweet.

I am no geographer but I would rename the Antrim and Down articles. I have rarely heard of them referred to without the County prefix and it might cause confusion with town names (Antrim being an obvious example of this). With regard to Avon i would definitely go with the new county boundaries, many people will have no clue about Avon and it is confusing to see a county name in the title but then categorised as a different name in the text.

With respect to you disagreement with categorization, I might be unclear on what you were trying to do. I think you had added a the KGVF category to each town that had a KGVF. Personally i think this is probably a bad idea since towns will have too many categories if such a style is used. It would seem more sensible to write a generic paragraph linking to the main article on KGVF's and add that to each town under their sport facilities or leisure facilities subheading. If you wish to have all the towns together an extension of your list would seem to make more sense. You currently have the counties listed. You might then have an indent and list the towns for each county. What do you think of that? David D. (Talk) 16:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I had indeed added a category to each town. taking your concept that a town might have too many categories, my first reaction was agreement. Then I asked myself "Why does it matter how many categories a town has?" My rationale is that a category is merely a way of indexing, and actually the more ways to index the merrier. I am now in two minds and am considering it. The generic paragraph is already there.

The indented list is attractive until we note that there are 471 of the little things.

Avon I will sort out,and the others I am in process of renaming. Fiddle Faddle 17:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I also notice when looking at your list that you have Westmoreland and many of the Welsh ones are out dated too. i can see your dilema here. Again I'd probably go with the modern and then mention the historical context as footnotes in the each article. You may also wish to consider including a navigation box at the bottom of each county list. This will make it very easy to browse from one county to another without having to9 return to the original list each time. I have set up somthing based of your original list in a sandbox (see User:David D./sandbox4.

Small paragraph so test.

Do you think this or something similar would be useful? I'll think more on the categories vs list. David D. (Talk) 17:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent concept. Can it be incorporated automatically somehow into the KGVF template? I am somewhat of a novice in these matters. Fiddle Faddle 22:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That should be no problem. David D. (Talk) 00:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

For your referenmce i created a specific template for you to use at Template:King George's Fields. Any changes to the template can be made there. I hope you enjoy using this. David D. (Talk) 03:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

More on categories

I just noticed that you have categorised all the county lists in the Category:Charities based in the United Kingdom and the Category:Lists of United Kingdom parks. Wouldn't it make more sense to categorise just the King George's Fields and the List of King George V Playing Fields articles in those categories? Strangely, i find you have not categorised either othe those articles in those categories. What is the rationale you are working with here? David D. (Talk) 03:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Each individual field is constituted as a charity, even if it is as small as a couple of acres. This was done in order to seek to guarantee each field's use in perpetuity (a very odd UK legal term) as a place of recreation. However the King George's Fields article itself refers to many charities rather than (I recall) being a charity itself. I think you are right that the "list of lists" should be categorised as a charity. I am now unsure about the main article giving details of the history (etc) of the fields as a whole. Interested in your opinion. A second head, as we always see, brings clarity of thought. Fiddle Faddle 07:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that is a complicated mess. So technically each field should be added to the UK charity category, however, i do bulk at the idea of doing this from the perspective of having so many fields in that category. In a way, by categorising the county lists, you are already half way between having the one master list at one extreme compared to having every field at the other. In this respect, I think simplifying to one entry as the master list might be the best choice. I'm certainly not going to revert your work, just throwing out some food for thought. David D. (Talk) 22:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

This is why I have added the lists per se as charities because they are effectively lists of charities as well as of locations with fields. The whole area is one large anomaly. My challenge is that, while it is certainly notable it is also minority interest. Were this 1936 it would be in the forefront of every UK editor's mind, but this is a few years later :). I'm giving this whole area substantial thought prior to continuing. I'm just rather sad that a wholly unrelated category Category:Fairtrade settlements is going to be deleted because of the actions of the editor who had rather fixed ideas about things. Fiddle Faddle 00:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Peter Gurney

{{tone}} Wording like "major positive influence in the UK and beyond" is not appropriate for a professional encyclopedia. "Major" is akin to "very," "extremely," and other impossible-to-quantify qualifiers. In the UK and beyond; where else exactly? Why isn't he mentioned. This is weasel word-y. It's a fine start, sure, but it's not professionally written. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I think we can solve that easily enough. I think you will find no-one writes professionally for Wikipedia, btw, but I take your point happily. Fiddle Faddle 19:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

And thank you No worries; you're good. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)