This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Wiltshire This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wiltshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wiltshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WiltshireWikipedia:WikiProject WiltshireTemplate:WikiProject WiltshireWiltshire

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 40 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I have started a project for missing civil parishes at User:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes. The missing parishes in Wiltshire are:

• Central Swindon North
• Central Swindon South, draft exists at Draft:Central Swindon South
• Fittleton cum Haxton
• St Andrews, Swindon
• West Swindon

And these exists as a redirect only but should have separate articles:

• Burcombe Without
• Langley Burrell Without
• Lea and Cleverton
• Lyneham and Bradenstoke
• Maiden Bradley with Yarnfield
• Pitton and Farley
• Wilcot, Huish and Oare

A total of 12, see User:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes (3)#Wiltshire. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Crouch, Swale, we can see why most of those have not triggered an article yet, they are quite modern creations with little history under those identities. Some of them may even struggle a bit with notability. The more interesting redirects may be Cleverton and the deserted medieval village of Yarnfield, Wiltshire (historically in Somerset). Moonraker (talk) 03:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes modern creations tend to be given separate articles like Colchester/Borough of Colchester. Lea and Cleverton would be an article and Cleverton would redirect to it if it doesn't also merit an article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Moonraker: So yes the likes of Cleverton and Yarnfield, Wiltshire can redirect to their CPs if they don't have articles themselves. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rather late to the party, but I've created South Swindon parish, which is now the offical name for what was once Central Swindon South. I was unceratin of the name; simply "South Swindon" fits the pattern but is obviously ambiguous relating to things like the parliamentary constituency. Could be better at South Swindon (parish) or something like that; I'm open to suggestions. Patch86UK (talk) 14:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Patch86UK: I wasn't aware of a name change. Swindon Borough Council has a page for Central Swindon South Parish Council, and MapIt still shows it as Central Swindon South. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, the change went through formally in October 2023. You can see the formal motion to change it at item 56 here:

http://ww5.swindon.gov.uk/moderngov/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=284&MId=10980&Ver=4

It also generated a small amount of news coverage, e.g.: https://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/23853647.south-swindon-parish-council-can-change-name/

Takes a while for these things to filter through the bureaucracy, though. Coincidentally, I submitted a corresponding change request over at Wikidata for the relevant tag just earlier today; that feeds through to a few things like Open Street Map (no idea what feeds MapIt, but might well be that). Patch86UK (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• 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.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "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.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 Salisbury City Council election, where the four pages on Salisbury City Council elections are being proposed for deletion. Moonraker (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aymatth2, we have not opted out. Moonraker (talk) 09:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't think you have to take any action in that case. Pinging MSGJ to confirm. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I donn't think I have ever heard anyone refer to Salisbury Plain using the definite article; always "on Salisbury Plain", never "on the Salisbury Plain". This came up at a GA review I'm involved in and whereas I'm disinclined to fail it on such a triviality, I am now very curious. Perhaps I haven't had that many conversations about Salisbury Plain. Anyone here have an answer? Thanks --Ykraps (talk) 07:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, that's the common usage. For some reason we use the definite article when it's a wide area (the Cheshire Plain, the Solway Plain) but not for more specific places (on Salisbury Plain, on Solsbury Hill). -- Wire723 (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Church of St Peter, Clyffe Pypard would be much improved by an image of the grave of Nikolaus Pevsner and of his wife, Lola, [1]. If any Wiltshire-based editors have an opportunity, I would be most grateful. KJP1 (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]