![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Previous talk archived.-- Kudpung ( talk) 23:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Malvern DAB page: I have corrected a typo, added an entry, and alphabetised the list.-- Kudpung ( talk) 05:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- and thanks to everyone who worked so hard over the past few days to get Malvern to GA. -- Kudpung ( talk) 23:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the 'find' template. I hope nobody minds. The Malvern page is probably as complete as it ever will be. Any more additions might simply unbalance the focus. Of course, if the place gets promoted to city status, or gets razed in an earthquake, there may be grounds to expand the article by a line or two- but only through consensus!-- Kudpung ( talk) 13:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello Jarry1250, welcome to the discussion. We could make a ridiculous Wikipedia arguement out of this, but things tend to run more effectively when we're civil, so cut the aggressive tone. As to your edits:
I look forward to your helpful discussion or edits. GyroMagician ( talk) 19:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
(indent) Gyro, you as a physicist may be right about the very, very slightly awkward use of groundbreaking. I know absolutely nothing about physics - that was my dad's domain and nothing rubbed off. I'm just a humble linguist and although my subject is called Kommunikationswissenschaft it has little to do with 'scientific' research and inventing stuff ;) I found nothing offensive in the term, not have I found anything in any dictionaries that suggest it may have any Wikipedia 'peacock' term inferences.
Hi folks. Our use of the {{r}} template has had an unforseen and unintended consequence for the article. It transpires there is some controversy about the use of {{r}} templates, which has surfaced since our use in this article. The controversy seems unlikely to be settled any time soon. Meantime, the controversy has escalated to the point that the template has been nominated for deletion, and there is - at time of this message - an automated message at every reference where the {{r}} template is used. This has the effect of detracting from the readability of the article.
My suggestion is that we replace the {{r}} templates with <ref name=/> templates. That will make the article readable once more, so that it is (a) not collateral damage from the controversy, and (b) not ammunition for that controversy, which none of us foresaw at time of using the {{r}} template. We used it to serve a purpose, and it transpires that the <ref name=/> template serves the same purpose without controversy. My suggestion therefore is to utilise that so the article is no longer collateral damage from the controversy.
The task itself is straightforward enough. My own method is to copy and paste the <ref name=/> template into the Edit summary field, so that it is readily available without switching between windows. Then, using the 'Find' function, search for all occurances of {{r}} which will then show up highlighted. Then, copy the <ref name=/> in front of every highlighted occurance of the {{r|MyrefName}} template. I then cut the reference name (MyrefName) from the {{r|MyrefName}} template and paste it into the <ref name=/> template thus <ref name=MyrefName/>. Then I delete the bare {{r}} template and move on to the next highlighted one. This allows me to methodically work through the article with minimum time and effort, doing preview checks along the way.
That is my suggestion, for what it's worth, if you want to keep the focus on the article itself and avoid having it become part of someone's cannon fodder in an ongoing controversy. Regards Wotnow ( talk) 02:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone provide a sourced IPA transcription of the way Malvern is pronounced, in this article and in Great Malvern etc? People unfamiliar with the place might conceivably say /mæl-/, when I think I'm right in saying that it's /mɔl-/, but how long is the vowel (/mɔːl-/ like Marlborough?) and could it conceivably be /mɒl-/? Also, as far as the second syllable goes, is the local pronunciation rhotic? I'm thinking particularly of the older generation with firmly local roots: no doubt younger people who've moved to Malvern don't rhotacise it. Old Man of Storr ( talk) 18:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The Malvern Hills Hopper has been axed. (Malvern Gazette & Ledbury Reporter 30 April 2010 p. 9). Other bus routs have been extended, in particular the 362/363, and the 44B. Please update.-- Kudpung ( talk) 18:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi folks. I was perusing one of the citation articles for useful or interesting material, when I read a paragraph describing buildings in which Wilson and Gully set up their water cure practice. One piece says "Gully built two embattlemented buildings, Tudor House for men and Holyrood House for women...Together they now constitute the Tudor Hotel, on the main road to the Wells, just a couple of hundred yards beyond Bellevue Terrace". [1]
I searched the Malvern article for reference to Tudor Hotel, but found nothing. This could mean a few things (e.g. hotel exists, but nothing noted; hotel no longer exists; not noteworthy etc). So I did a Google search, and found an article about a fire. [2] [3] Further searches reveal that it's the same building, "built in 1852 to house Dr Gully's male water cure patients." [4] The Chairman of the Malvern Civic Society said “It was the beginning of the water cure, the beginning of Malvern as a spa town. That’s where it all started.” [2]
I was going to post a comment here as both a query about McMenemy's comment, and a flag for possible inclusion in the Malvern article if deemed relevant (e.g. historic and/or landmark building). My Google search was intended to either answer the query or give leads, with comment and citation here for consideration. My query has indeed been answered in the process of doing the search, but not in a manner I'd have liked. Such is life. At any rate, the comment is now posted for consideration.
I could of course add something in the article myself, but I prefer in the first instance to defer to those of you who are natives of the area, as you may be in a better position than me to provide context for any reference to the building. Regards Wotnow ( talk) 22:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); |chapter=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help). Wall cited sectional p.1 (Vol. p.5).
Cite error: A
list-defined reference named "MalvernFireFeb2010" is not used in the content (see the
help page).
KP, I notice you removed Cher Lloyd from the list of notables. I don't expect she'll be remembered as long as the likes of Gully, but she is a current figure, in that she appears on a popular national TV show. It's a bit of fun - shouldn't she be included, for as long as she lasts, at least? She has reached the lofty heights of the cover of the Gazette: http://www.malverngazette.co.uk/news/8415751.Does_Cher_have_the_X_Factor_/?ref=mr. GyroMagician ( talk) 10:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Well Gyro, and what about all the times I've been in the Gazette and didn't get a mention in a Wikipedia article? ;) I would say that if she were the calibre of that lass who went to Dysons and ended up as Home Secretary, then she can be listed. In fact we've been deleting TV talent show contestants from all over the 'pedia. What if we at least wait until until she wins? -- Kudpung ( talk) 12:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Page Move debate
|
---|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Thee debate was closed on 1 December 2010 as: No consensus. As Malvern, Worcestershire clearly has has primacy, there is strictly no need for the 'Worcestershire' in the page title. The page should be renamed simply Malvern with a hatnote for disambiguation. Rationale: Malvern, Worcestershire, has over 1,000 years of history, has a population of 28749, the page has an average of around 300 hits per day, not including the several pages for its town centre, and suburbs. All the other Malverns are named after it. In contrast, other settlements of the same name were not established until long after the discovery of the Americas, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa: By hits:
By pop:
-- Kudpung ( talk) 01:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC) By 'What links here?'
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
I have several of these books at hand. They really provide a lot of social history. They can be obtained from the Museum, but I did not mention that because I thought it might be considered advertizing. Would it? I think it is the references which have pushed the byte count over unquestioned limit. Will take out if considered excessive. Michael P. Barnett ( talk) 04:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Based on personal recollection -- I worked there 1953 to 1955. There seems to be an inconsistency in dates of mergers between Wikipedia pages for laboratories that merged after my time. I am fairly certain another physicist at RRE made a famous named discovery after he came to the U.S. but want to check before putting him in. Michael P. Barnett ( talk) 04:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions. This Malvern article will never be complete, but then, it's not the aim of an encyclopedia to be a complete reference work to any one subject. It's had the input and collaboration of a coupe of ancient residents and people who worked at RRE from the timeit came to Malvern through to the change over to QinetiQ. We welcome of course any correction to dates and details. As regards references, usually one verifiable source is sufficient for a statement in the text. A long row of superscript index numbers could affect the aesthetics of the page. I would be inclined to use one only, and add the other works of literature to the bibliography section if they are not already listed. I have left a further message for you on your talk page. -- Kudpung ( talk) 14:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I will type these on User_talk:Kudpung later this evening Michael P. Barnett ( talk) 01:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
(I thought I was supposed to type this on User_talk:Kudpung but it vanished. Where do I find rules on what should be typed where? I put what follows on my page, clicked Save page after previewing, and got your message!)
1. As requested, I reworded to avoid run of citation numbers.
2. I give list of topics of photographs as indication of matters that were topical, which have changed, and which have not (assume reader can fill in). Will omit if considered inappropriate.
3. I mention individuals for possible use in searches by biographers, social and cultural historians. Will omit if considered inappropriate.
4. Additions to research topics is from perspective determined by my background, very different from electrical engineers' and physicists working essentially on electronics. Will omit if skews overall perspective deemed optimal by the concensus.
5. Additions to notable persons likewise plus personal acquaintance.
6. I have not found article or book that states John Gunn was at Malvern. But have found citations to his papers with Gibson that give his affiliation as RRE. So will include in Notable people in next pass.
7. For Uttley I would like to give reference used in body of article but when I try using same [1] construction twice I get two entries in reference list. Where do I find what to do? Should I redo using name= construction?
8. If any of the people I added to "notables" are thought not, please delete.
9. Do numbers of people in radar community include RRDE or not? Either way, is clarification needed and, if so, what is it?
10. Would area of TRE (and RRDE) be of interest. In retrospect, I think TRE was several hundred acres, but not at all sure.
11. How can inconsistencies of dates of mergers in Wikipedia pages for mergers be resolved?
12. In demographics, should latest census results be supplemented by pointer to where earlier results can be found by users interested in trends.
13. (leaving this in but not expecting further comment -- will come up with some superscript paraphrases and ask if acceptable) Any way getting citation numbers in line? Alternatively, how to reword in style acceptable to Wikipedia "This has been discussed extensively. Early and recent accounts include [1] and [2] respectively."
14. Finding citable sources for facts stated from "accepted wisdom" or memory has been most time consuming part of editing for me. A message about helping train students to work with Wikapedia appeared in a few sessions recently. Any possibility that students could assist with the literature searching as part of team effort?
15. I will join the Malvern group. I was a Government Fellow from 1953 to 1955, in Leo Pincherle's section, with David Jenkins and Geoffrey Chester (who I have seen several times when visiting Cornell). I shared office with Michael Radcliffe (who went to Carnegie Tech) and later with David Howarth (who went to Manchester U). Hodlin got me to put construction of quarterly report of distribution of effort on different projects onto punched cards, as experiment.
Thanks. Michael P. Barnett ( talk) 04:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately two entries to the list of notable people have had to be removed for lack of sourcing:
No unsourced material may be introduced to a Wikipedia Good Articel. See note in edit mode code.-- Kudpung ( talk) 07:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I have a small amount of information, non-secret but probably not known to people who were not trained as chemists, that I will be glad to provide if requested on User:Michael P. Barnett Michael P. Barnett ( talk) 01:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to jump the gun on this, but as the list is steadily growing, maybe we ought to start considering splitting it off into a separate list article, leaving a nice prose section highlighting a handful of the most illustrious residents.-- Kudpung ( talk) 12:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Previous talk archived.-- Kudpung ( talk) 23:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Malvern DAB page: I have corrected a typo, added an entry, and alphabetised the list.-- Kudpung ( talk) 05:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- and thanks to everyone who worked so hard over the past few days to get Malvern to GA. -- Kudpung ( talk) 23:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the 'find' template. I hope nobody minds. The Malvern page is probably as complete as it ever will be. Any more additions might simply unbalance the focus. Of course, if the place gets promoted to city status, or gets razed in an earthquake, there may be grounds to expand the article by a line or two- but only through consensus!-- Kudpung ( talk) 13:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello Jarry1250, welcome to the discussion. We could make a ridiculous Wikipedia arguement out of this, but things tend to run more effectively when we're civil, so cut the aggressive tone. As to your edits:
I look forward to your helpful discussion or edits. GyroMagician ( talk) 19:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
(indent) Gyro, you as a physicist may be right about the very, very slightly awkward use of groundbreaking. I know absolutely nothing about physics - that was my dad's domain and nothing rubbed off. I'm just a humble linguist and although my subject is called Kommunikationswissenschaft it has little to do with 'scientific' research and inventing stuff ;) I found nothing offensive in the term, not have I found anything in any dictionaries that suggest it may have any Wikipedia 'peacock' term inferences.
Hi folks. Our use of the {{r}} template has had an unforseen and unintended consequence for the article. It transpires there is some controversy about the use of {{r}} templates, which has surfaced since our use in this article. The controversy seems unlikely to be settled any time soon. Meantime, the controversy has escalated to the point that the template has been nominated for deletion, and there is - at time of this message - an automated message at every reference where the {{r}} template is used. This has the effect of detracting from the readability of the article.
My suggestion is that we replace the {{r}} templates with <ref name=/> templates. That will make the article readable once more, so that it is (a) not collateral damage from the controversy, and (b) not ammunition for that controversy, which none of us foresaw at time of using the {{r}} template. We used it to serve a purpose, and it transpires that the <ref name=/> template serves the same purpose without controversy. My suggestion therefore is to utilise that so the article is no longer collateral damage from the controversy.
The task itself is straightforward enough. My own method is to copy and paste the <ref name=/> template into the Edit summary field, so that it is readily available without switching between windows. Then, using the 'Find' function, search for all occurances of {{r}} which will then show up highlighted. Then, copy the <ref name=/> in front of every highlighted occurance of the {{r|MyrefName}} template. I then cut the reference name (MyrefName) from the {{r|MyrefName}} template and paste it into the <ref name=/> template thus <ref name=MyrefName/>. Then I delete the bare {{r}} template and move on to the next highlighted one. This allows me to methodically work through the article with minimum time and effort, doing preview checks along the way.
That is my suggestion, for what it's worth, if you want to keep the focus on the article itself and avoid having it become part of someone's cannon fodder in an ongoing controversy. Regards Wotnow ( talk) 02:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone provide a sourced IPA transcription of the way Malvern is pronounced, in this article and in Great Malvern etc? People unfamiliar with the place might conceivably say /mæl-/, when I think I'm right in saying that it's /mɔl-/, but how long is the vowel (/mɔːl-/ like Marlborough?) and could it conceivably be /mɒl-/? Also, as far as the second syllable goes, is the local pronunciation rhotic? I'm thinking particularly of the older generation with firmly local roots: no doubt younger people who've moved to Malvern don't rhotacise it. Old Man of Storr ( talk) 18:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The Malvern Hills Hopper has been axed. (Malvern Gazette & Ledbury Reporter 30 April 2010 p. 9). Other bus routs have been extended, in particular the 362/363, and the 44B. Please update.-- Kudpung ( talk) 18:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi folks. I was perusing one of the citation articles for useful or interesting material, when I read a paragraph describing buildings in which Wilson and Gully set up their water cure practice. One piece says "Gully built two embattlemented buildings, Tudor House for men and Holyrood House for women...Together they now constitute the Tudor Hotel, on the main road to the Wells, just a couple of hundred yards beyond Bellevue Terrace". [1]
I searched the Malvern article for reference to Tudor Hotel, but found nothing. This could mean a few things (e.g. hotel exists, but nothing noted; hotel no longer exists; not noteworthy etc). So I did a Google search, and found an article about a fire. [2] [3] Further searches reveal that it's the same building, "built in 1852 to house Dr Gully's male water cure patients." [4] The Chairman of the Malvern Civic Society said “It was the beginning of the water cure, the beginning of Malvern as a spa town. That’s where it all started.” [2]
I was going to post a comment here as both a query about McMenemy's comment, and a flag for possible inclusion in the Malvern article if deemed relevant (e.g. historic and/or landmark building). My Google search was intended to either answer the query or give leads, with comment and citation here for consideration. My query has indeed been answered in the process of doing the search, but not in a manner I'd have liked. Such is life. At any rate, the comment is now posted for consideration.
I could of course add something in the article myself, but I prefer in the first instance to defer to those of you who are natives of the area, as you may be in a better position than me to provide context for any reference to the building. Regards Wotnow ( talk) 22:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); |chapter=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help). Wall cited sectional p.1 (Vol. p.5).
Cite error: A
list-defined reference named "MalvernFireFeb2010" is not used in the content (see the
help page).
KP, I notice you removed Cher Lloyd from the list of notables. I don't expect she'll be remembered as long as the likes of Gully, but she is a current figure, in that she appears on a popular national TV show. It's a bit of fun - shouldn't she be included, for as long as she lasts, at least? She has reached the lofty heights of the cover of the Gazette: http://www.malverngazette.co.uk/news/8415751.Does_Cher_have_the_X_Factor_/?ref=mr. GyroMagician ( talk) 10:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Well Gyro, and what about all the times I've been in the Gazette and didn't get a mention in a Wikipedia article? ;) I would say that if she were the calibre of that lass who went to Dysons and ended up as Home Secretary, then she can be listed. In fact we've been deleting TV talent show contestants from all over the 'pedia. What if we at least wait until until she wins? -- Kudpung ( talk) 12:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Page Move debate
|
---|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Thee debate was closed on 1 December 2010 as: No consensus. As Malvern, Worcestershire clearly has has primacy, there is strictly no need for the 'Worcestershire' in the page title. The page should be renamed simply Malvern with a hatnote for disambiguation. Rationale: Malvern, Worcestershire, has over 1,000 years of history, has a population of 28749, the page has an average of around 300 hits per day, not including the several pages for its town centre, and suburbs. All the other Malverns are named after it. In contrast, other settlements of the same name were not established until long after the discovery of the Americas, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa: By hits:
By pop:
-- Kudpung ( talk) 01:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC) By 'What links here?'
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
I have several of these books at hand. They really provide a lot of social history. They can be obtained from the Museum, but I did not mention that because I thought it might be considered advertizing. Would it? I think it is the references which have pushed the byte count over unquestioned limit. Will take out if considered excessive. Michael P. Barnett ( talk) 04:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Based on personal recollection -- I worked there 1953 to 1955. There seems to be an inconsistency in dates of mergers between Wikipedia pages for laboratories that merged after my time. I am fairly certain another physicist at RRE made a famous named discovery after he came to the U.S. but want to check before putting him in. Michael P. Barnett ( talk) 04:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions. This Malvern article will never be complete, but then, it's not the aim of an encyclopedia to be a complete reference work to any one subject. It's had the input and collaboration of a coupe of ancient residents and people who worked at RRE from the timeit came to Malvern through to the change over to QinetiQ. We welcome of course any correction to dates and details. As regards references, usually one verifiable source is sufficient for a statement in the text. A long row of superscript index numbers could affect the aesthetics of the page. I would be inclined to use one only, and add the other works of literature to the bibliography section if they are not already listed. I have left a further message for you on your talk page. -- Kudpung ( talk) 14:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I will type these on User_talk:Kudpung later this evening Michael P. Barnett ( talk) 01:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
(I thought I was supposed to type this on User_talk:Kudpung but it vanished. Where do I find rules on what should be typed where? I put what follows on my page, clicked Save page after previewing, and got your message!)
1. As requested, I reworded to avoid run of citation numbers.
2. I give list of topics of photographs as indication of matters that were topical, which have changed, and which have not (assume reader can fill in). Will omit if considered inappropriate.
3. I mention individuals for possible use in searches by biographers, social and cultural historians. Will omit if considered inappropriate.
4. Additions to research topics is from perspective determined by my background, very different from electrical engineers' and physicists working essentially on electronics. Will omit if skews overall perspective deemed optimal by the concensus.
5. Additions to notable persons likewise plus personal acquaintance.
6. I have not found article or book that states John Gunn was at Malvern. But have found citations to his papers with Gibson that give his affiliation as RRE. So will include in Notable people in next pass.
7. For Uttley I would like to give reference used in body of article but when I try using same [1] construction twice I get two entries in reference list. Where do I find what to do? Should I redo using name= construction?
8. If any of the people I added to "notables" are thought not, please delete.
9. Do numbers of people in radar community include RRDE or not? Either way, is clarification needed and, if so, what is it?
10. Would area of TRE (and RRDE) be of interest. In retrospect, I think TRE was several hundred acres, but not at all sure.
11. How can inconsistencies of dates of mergers in Wikipedia pages for mergers be resolved?
12. In demographics, should latest census results be supplemented by pointer to where earlier results can be found by users interested in trends.
13. (leaving this in but not expecting further comment -- will come up with some superscript paraphrases and ask if acceptable) Any way getting citation numbers in line? Alternatively, how to reword in style acceptable to Wikipedia "This has been discussed extensively. Early and recent accounts include [1] and [2] respectively."
14. Finding citable sources for facts stated from "accepted wisdom" or memory has been most time consuming part of editing for me. A message about helping train students to work with Wikapedia appeared in a few sessions recently. Any possibility that students could assist with the literature searching as part of team effort?
15. I will join the Malvern group. I was a Government Fellow from 1953 to 1955, in Leo Pincherle's section, with David Jenkins and Geoffrey Chester (who I have seen several times when visiting Cornell). I shared office with Michael Radcliffe (who went to Carnegie Tech) and later with David Howarth (who went to Manchester U). Hodlin got me to put construction of quarterly report of distribution of effort on different projects onto punched cards, as experiment.
Thanks. Michael P. Barnett ( talk) 04:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately two entries to the list of notable people have had to be removed for lack of sourcing:
No unsourced material may be introduced to a Wikipedia Good Articel. See note in edit mode code.-- Kudpung ( talk) 07:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I have a small amount of information, non-secret but probably not known to people who were not trained as chemists, that I will be glad to provide if requested on User:Michael P. Barnett Michael P. Barnett ( talk) 01:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to jump the gun on this, but as the list is steadily growing, maybe we ought to start considering splitting it off into a separate list article, leaving a nice prose section highlighting a handful of the most illustrious residents.-- Kudpung ( talk) 12:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)