This page is within the scope of WikiProject Buckinghamshire, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BuckinghamshireWikipedia:WikiProject BuckinghamshireTemplate:WikiProject BuckinghamshireBuckinghamshire
As big as this is, i do not think it is large enough for a project. However, there is no project covering the county i which Milton Keynes is in so may i suggest this project expands its scope and become WikiProject Buckinghamshire? Simply south (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This project was suggested at the WikiProject Council sometime back. However, a Buckinghamshire Project, and potential Milton Keynes taskforce, could work better as it would hopefully get more people interested. SeveroTC22:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's like a mini-project. It has it's own group of members who look at a specific area within the scope of a project, but all the admin and bureaucracy is still covered by the main WikiProject, avoiding doubling up of all the admin work etc. SeveroTC13:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged about 1000 articles that fall under the recursive category of Buckinghamshire with some exceptions, some which then fed into other counties (the categorisation in these cases is wrong) and people who play for sports teams in our areas (my thinking is that sportspeople from Bucks are within the scope, but sportspeople who play in Bucks are not). If you find a load of articles that are tagged and you're not sure they should be in our scope, or vice-versa, leave a note here and we can do whatever's necessary! SeveroTC12:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say don't include it, because it's only one researcher that is trying to push that it was in the Chilterns area - all others place the kingdom elsewhere. However if you want to pre-Roman district that modern-day Buckinghamshire is in, it's Catuvellauni, and that's not in WP:BUCKS yet. -- Roleplayer (talk) 22:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that one, someone had got overzealous in putting it in the History of Buckinghamshire category, not to mention History of Herts, Oxon etc. I think we'll find some other dodgy categorisation here and there. I don't think such articles, including Catuvellauni, that date back so far before "Buckinghamshire" was conceived, should be included. SeveroTC22:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think, in general, pre-Buckinghamshire history should not be covered, however, in specific cases such as the one you mention where the subject has some significance now, then they should be included (if my meaning is clear). Either way, if anyone thinks a particular article should be added, be bold and add it :) SeveroTC21:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking for a more appropriate Buckinghamshire photo for the project banner, but in lieu of a flag or a very recognisable building or scene, I wasn't really sure what to pick. I would have chosen a little map, but I couldn't find one on commons :S The current one is very MK biased! SeveroTC12:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The county does have an unofficial flag, but it's very difficult to draw seeing as it has the county swan in the middle of it. What about a notable landmark? -- Roleplayer (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that Buckinghamshire used to be considered FA status in the past - can we focus on getting that back up to scratch first? -- Roleplayer (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, when it was promoted the criteria was a little different so there may be a fair amount of work to do in some areas, but I think it's core for this project! SeveroTC16:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I forgot to check if this had been actioned! Looks like you've worked that one out! It looks great! Well done! --Jza84 | Talk 01:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 Buckinghamshire. 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.— Rodtalk13:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking between us we probably have a lot of hard sources to hand,so how about a listing so that we can easily ask someone if we need something from a particular source? I'll get the ball rolling, I have in front of me:
The Plan for Milton Keynes Volume One. Milton Keynes Development Corporation. Bletchley: European. 1970. ISBN0903379007. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: others (link)
The Plan for Milton Keynes Volume Two. Milton Keynes Development Corporation. Bletchley: European. 1970. ISBN0903379007. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: others (link)
Markham, Sir Frank (1986) [1973]. History of Milton Keynes and District Volume 1. Luton: White Crescent. ISBN0900804297. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
Markham, Sir Frank (1986) [1975]. History of Milton Keynes and District Volume 2. Luton: White Crescent. ISBN0900804300. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
Clapson, Mark (2004). A Social History of Milton Keynes. London: Frank Cass. ISBN0714684171. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
Cook, Robert (2004). Bletchley Past & Present. Stroud: Sutton. ISBN075093445X.
Can others please suggest/ advise on how articles in the Bucks Project should be (peer-)reviewed and their ratings reassessed. Some articles have ratings based on Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography assessment previously done others do not. Meanwhile I saw one tagged just now by this project which is also part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football i.e. Talk:Milton Keynes Dons F.C. which was just reassessed. I could see no discussion or peer review it seems it was done on the run without reference here or to the football project. If we are to have some consistency it would be useful to know the criteria/ process and / who has responsibility to do this and how the community should be involved. ThanksTmol42 (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been running AWB to migrate ratings carried out by other projects to our new project banner and assessment scheme. This reduces the amount of articles we have to assess from around 1000 to 250. All projects broadly base their assessments upon the Version 1.0 Editorial Teamassessment criteria, so there shouldn't be any differences in ratings. I will migrate the various bits from those pages to project sub-pages here when I find the time. On the levels below Good Article - namely "Stub", "Start" and "B" - no further peer assessment needs to be undertaken other than a "silent review", there doesn't need to be discussion at these levels. With the example you cite, someone asked me about the rating of the article so I reassessed it manually and it fits the "B" criteria, so I altered the assessment ratings on the talk page.
The point of assessing is two-fold. First, it enables us to chart the quality of the individual article. Second, it allows us to chart the quality of articles within the scope of the WikiProject altogether. This is the more interesting one for us as most articles are already covered by another WikiProject and so individually assessed.
As for who/how to assess and so on, all guidelines are taken from the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. Up to and including the "B" assessment, anyone can assess or reassess an article - it is completely unbureaucratic. It can be a bit subjective. Beyond "B", there is an assessment system for Good Articles and Featured Articles. The "A" assessment I don't think we will end up using - it is a seldom used stepping stone between GA and FA which only larger projects (for example Biography) use. I personally don't think it's good practice to grade your own work above "Start" (recognising up to "Start" is easy, beyond is where the subjectivity starts), so I would typically remove the assessment altogether, which places the article back into the Unassessed Buckinghamshire articles category. Hopefully then someone else comes along to assess it - this is more likely if the category holds less than 20 articles at any one time! Hope this answers your questions! SeveroTC23:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, if you want a certain few articles reviewed sooner rather than later, list them here and I'll look through them tomorrow. SeveroTC23:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your full and very helpful reply. The issue I have found with contributing to articles about small settlements, unlike larger towns and conurbations, is they tend to be developed by one or two editors only so there is next to no development and refinement based on critique of each others edits etc. I have been working on quite a number of the typical small village settlements(only 100-300 inhabitants) in the Chilterns spiraling out from a hub / cluster of 4 villages whose history /communities are closely interlinked due to their relative isolation from others not far distant.
So it would be really helpful if you could take a look at Cholesbury and Hawridge which are furthest advanced editorially speaking of the four and follow most closely the template guidance for village settlements and then if you can spare the time then either Buckland Common and St Leonards which are yet to be reconfigured like the first two. It would be also useful for others to know what needs to be contained within a very small hamlet like Chivery or Asheridge which are to be fond all over Bucks to get them a descent rating. Being remote autonomous settlements which fall below the level which census and other demographic data can be desegregated from Local Government statistics limits what can be incorporated. Any thoughts will be much appreciatedTmol42 (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've left comments about Cholesbury at the talk page there, it's "B" standard but really suffers from the lack of inline citations. I haven't left comments at Hawridge but it's very similar, although there doesn't seem to be the issue of repeated links in sections. Considering the size of the villages, I think it's very good work! Keep it up! SeveroTC00:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks the guidance and suggested improvements here will be helpful in improving the article and I think will be of use for others working on upgrading villages and other settlements Tmol42 (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please could someone have a look at the article on Wexham. I was working my way through categorising civil parishes in Bucks and came across this page which is a hybrid of Wexham a settlement / civil parish in Buckinghamshire and a suburb of the unitary authority of Slough Wexham Park / Wexham Court. It was categorised as a Berkshire stub which I reclassified as a Buckinghamshire stub but perhaps its both on reflection! It looks like someone else has also queried the content as there is a hidden query inserted about the history of the parishes. Either way it needs sorting but I don't have enough knowledge of this part of Bucks but happy to help someone who has. I also had a look over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Berkshire but they look to be still in the early stages of their project, Thanks Tmol42 (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable)22:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, 1066 articles are assigned to this project, of which 154, or 14.4%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place the following template on your project page:
I have adopted the assessment rating from WP Somerset, because theirs appeared to be quite good. I will now make a start at assessing Bucks articles according to this scale, feel free to join me. -- roleplayer12:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot22:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many Buckinghamshire articles are missing geographical coordinates. Finding the latitude and longitude of locations, and entering coordinates into articles is straightforwards, and explained at Wikipedia:Geocoding how-to for WikiProject members. Having coordinates on articles mean that they turn up in GoogleMaps, MultiMap and other such places which link to wikipedia based on geo-coordinates.
It is now possible to get lists of Buckinghamshire articles that have no geographical coordinates via Wikipedia:CatScan, for example:
The articles in the lists above are currently marked with {{coord missing}} templates, which need replacing with filled in {{coord}} templates containing their latitude/longitude data (or else have lat&long entered into the infobox).
There are about 169 articles missing coords - I hope you'll consider adding coordinates so as to make Buckinghamshire articles more visible on the web. thanks --Tagishsimon(talk)19:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update. Articles needing coordinates have been placed into a category. 5 articles in Category:Buckinghamshire articles missing geocoordinate data do not have geographic coordinates. Coords are useful for making the article appear on Google Maps & many other mapping services; and they allow our users to click through to see the article subject location on a map. There's a short guide to on how to add geocodes to articles ... it really is very easy to do. I hope you'll take some time to ensure that Buckinghamshire is as well represented as it can be on wikipedia by fixing up the listed articles. thanks --Tagishsimon(talk)
I have created the article, Transport in Buckinghamshire which I intend to cover every major aspect of transport. If anyone can help with writing, providing sources or just general spelling checks etc, I would be very grateful. At the moment, only the railway section has has been started. Oliver Fury, Esq.message • contributions04:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.
We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.
If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.
I'm still here. Just been through and assessed a whole bunch of articles for quality and importance. Anyone else around? -- roleplayer22:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The front page is a bit of a mess; I'm not brilliant at this kind of thing but my first job will be to tidy that up a bit. -- roleplayer16:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have copied and pasted a version of the front page here so that I can work on making it a bit more attractive and less messy, without disturbing other people's watchlists if they don't want me to. Feel free to join in and make improvements. -- roleplayer12:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone good at wikitable formatting, please go to the members list to format the table there. It could do with headings, and possibly a "location" column as well. -- roleplayer14:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone find or produce a decent free image of the flag of Bucks? Previous attempts have been deleted as being unfree. -- roleplayer22:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Buckinghamshire articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Buckinghamshire articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
Nothing to do? Looking for something to fill a bit of time? Then look no further!
I am creating a complete list of geographical places about Buckinghamshire, using the electronic gazetteer at List of United Kingdom locations to identify where they are. Because Bucks is quite rural there are a LOT of small hamlets attached to larger parishes.
At the moment all I am doing is redirecting the hamlet to the parish page. But that's a bit boring, and there's a whole wealth of information about these small places that is being missed from the encyclopedia.
So have a look at the below templates and if one of the hamlets you know is just a redirect to its parish page, be bold and create an article! I look forward to reading what you create!
Could some kind souls keep an eye on this page please? Yesterday I spent ten minutes copyediting it, only to have my edit undone in a single swoop today by an IP address. I have just gone through bit by bit explaining in edit summaries what I have done and why, now it's just a time thing to find out if the IP is going to undo it all again. -- roleplayer18:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who else is around at the moment, and I realise I'm a new member, but maybe we could compile a list of goals for the project for 2013 - a mixture of specific and general goals that we can work on individually and collaboratively to improve the coverage of Bucks. As well as the specific goals we have at the moment, we could have "Get xxx articles to GA status", "Decrease number of stubs below xxx"... Thoughts? Moswentotalky16:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I realise that I have not been particularly active within this project since it's creation but I do support (and would try to contribute) to project goals. I'd say it would be better to determine articles for improvement (towards GA/FA) rather than limit the number of stubs as (from my experience of stub sorting) there's always articles which have been created but not identified as stubs and there are always new articles to be created. It would seem reasonable to identify some key articles to this project (off the top of my head Buckinghamshire, Aylesbury and Milton Keynes but anything which the statistics show is high-traffic) and work out some goals for them. SeveroTC23:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of having some general goals as well as specific goals, sort of like a smaller scale version of the Military History WikiProject's "milestones" - xxx number of FAs, xxx number of GAs etc. This might encourage people who wanted to contribute to the project but weren't interested in the article-specific goals. At the same time, a few key articles should be a priority for 2013, particularly Buckinghamshire and its (sometimes yet-to-be-created) sub articles (History of Buckinghamshire, Geography of Buckinghamshire, Transport in Buckinghamshire etc.) One approach would be to divide up the Buckinghamshire article and related subarticles among anybody who's interested (e.g. I would be interested in working on history, transport and education; someone else might be interested in geography and transport; someone else in politics and education etc.) Over the course of the year (or less), we could then get Buckinghamshire to FA status and perhaps some of the subarticles to GA. Moswentotalky07:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just completed updating population data for the 2011 census, and adding citations in the info boxes for all (circa 170) of the civil parishes for Bucks including the Milton Keynes UA. There were a few exceptions relating to some of those parishes with less than 100 residents. Data for these has not been released onto the Neighbourhood Statistics site as yet. I cannot find this data published elsewhere by ONS so have fallen back on the Mid-2010 population estimates as a stop gap. I have also added info boxes to those civil parish articles, mainly in MK currently without them. Hopefully the other data I sought out to populate these info box templates is accurate, but suspect despite my best endeavours I may have got a one or two post codes, postal towns and the like wrong for those in Milton Keynes UA. Noticed that many of the parliamentary constituencies for Milton Keynes do not take account of boundary and name changes in 2010 too. Also I have not updated the ad hoc demography tables based on the 2001 data that crop up in a few articles.Tmol42 (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is with great affection for the county that I say these are perhaps only notable for Midsomer Murders or 1960s extensions of towns...
The editor who decided to pen articles for each hamlet in the county has not come across WP:UKCITIES.
Really could we not do as others do and combine hamlets under a Localities heading of the main parish? That is after all how most are found: it provides a ready-made commune in the European model for how communities (supposedly, and commonly) operate with say a football team or an arts society for the whole parish, and many other features in common usually based on the civil parish council. While this multi-article mania is indicative of growing compartmentalisation of every community, I do not support departing from the guidance, even if quite justifiably you can purport a rural neighbourhood as having more to it "visually at least" than every urban neighbourhood. The underlying reason behind this guidance seems to be WP:Notability and What Wikipedia is not -Adam37 (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please help get Buckinghamshire ready for the start of the Wiki Loves Monuments competition on 1st September
This September the UK is taking part for the first time in the international photography competition Wiki Loves Monuments. Participants will be invited to submit pictures of listed buildings of significant importance (grades I or grade II*), as recorded by English Heritage. The main external website for competitors can be found here, and you can leave a message there if you have queries about competing. Do please join in, and let people in your local area know of this excellent way in which both existing and new Wiki users can help improve the encyclopaedia by contributing photographs of local listed structures. What about organizing a local Wikimeet to attract new people?
In preparation for the start of the competition on 1st September there is still quite a lot of work to do, and we would like to ask for the help of members of this wikiproject. Your local and expert knowledge will be invaluable in ensuring that the lists of eligible buildings are up to date and correctly formatted. If you look at Listed buildings in the United Kingdom you will see how many structures are included. If you then follow the link to Listed buildings in England, you can get to the detailed lists for your area. Alternatively have a look at the WLM planning table. Can you help to ensure that the lists for your area are up to date and well presented?
Some of the lists have been semi-automatically generated from data provided by English Heritage. These use pre formatted templates (eg EH header) which will make it much easier for competition participants to upload their photographs to Commons as an automated process. Please don't change the template structure, as we need to ensure that the templates are properly compatible with the WLM standards that are in use worldwide. The format will allow a bot automatically to collect the information and to put it into the international Monuments Database.
The data still needs the attention of local editors:
The "title" may need wikilinking to a suitable article name (whether we currently have that article or not). If there are several buildings in one street all of the wikilinks point at an article about the street; however each entry has a separate line in the list.
The "location" column looks and sorts better if just the parish or town is included (& wikilinked).
The "date completed" column sometimes has eg "C19" for 19th century, and "C1850" for c. 1850 when the date is uncertain - these need to be corrected manually.
The "grid ref & lat & long" (which is occasionally missing) may be given to 8 characters — only 6 (grid ref) or 5 (lat & long) are really needed.
Clicking on the "list entry number" should take you to the data sheet for that entry on the English Heritage database which can be checked if needed for details.
The image column should have a picture added if we already have a suitable image on Commons. (N.B. if you are going to be taking photos yourself for inclusion in the competition don't upload them until September)
References may be added according to normal WP practice.
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As you might have seen in the Signpost last week, there's currently a drive to go through the million 19th century images released by the British Library last year, and identify all the maps, with a view to their being georeferenced by BL volunteers, and then uploaded to Commons early next year. After the first week, over eight thousand new maps have been identified, with 40% of the target books looked at -- see the status page for the latest figures, and more information.
A part that may specifically interest this project is
which currently shows pink templated links for 309 Flickr book pages still to be looked at. (Though there are lots of other parts of England, and indeed of the world, still to be looked through as well).
Any help looking through these would be very much appreciated -- as well as the maps (and ground plans) for tagging, you may well also find other interesting or useful non-map views that may be worth considering or uploading for articles on Buckinghamshire and elsewhere in the South-East. (If uploading, please use the ingestion template described here, which sets up some appropriate image templates and categories).
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
What?Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
When?June 2015
How can you help?
1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here
2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!
I have nominated West Wycombe Park for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midnightblueowl (talk • contribs) 23:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Buckinghamshire until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. Certes (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, one of you who hasn't participated may volunteer to close the discussion as 'no consensus for change at present', given that three (local) editors oppose the proposal and only the OP supports it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Crouch, Swale: Then we need a project to create parish categories. I do not see enough content to justify having a full article each, a four-or-five-sentence-long category description (if so much information can be obtained) doesn't sound unreasonable, and most of those sentences can be put on Wikidata for reference by {{Wikidata Infobox}}. WT79(speak to | editing analysis | edit list)22:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WT79: I agree. To take the two other parishes in the Borough of Milton Keynes, for example ('Haversham-cum-Little Linford' and 'Tyringham and Filgrave'): these names redirect to CP sections in the articles about the more notable settlement. Standalone articles would have no useful purpose or content other than "just a list of settlements". The extra material that C.S believes could be added can just as easily be added to that section. When it gets too big, split it then. This is trying to create articles for the sake of filing things neatly into little boxes. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
A discussion is ongoing at Template talk:Infobox English county#Proposal: remove the ethnicity section which is likely of interest to this project. The original proposal is for straight removal of the ethnicity field from the template; the population field would remain. This and a modified proposal would have the same effect on Buckinghamshire. A result of the change, if consented to, is the restriction of demographics, other than population to the local authority administrative sections of the county infoboxes. It has no effect on editors placing reliably sourced statistics in the body of the article. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
