This dicussion page is for participants of the Wikipedia:Sheffield project to discuss future articles, changes to make or moves...

Archives

Archive 1 - October 2006 to March 2007 Archive 2 - March to May 2007

I've been doing some work on this page recently and wanted to have it assessed but cant work out how to do it. Could somebody take a look at it or help with this ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.223.193 (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys. I've been looking around, and I spotted {{BirminghamBuildings}}, and I wondered if Sheffield could have something similar. Anyway, I've been playing around, and have created the marvel that is this. Does anyone think that this could have a place on some articles? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 00:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also created collapsable boxes, see

• User:Lewisskinner/Sandbox/Template:SheffieldStructures
• User:Lewisskinner/Sandbox/Template:SheffieldStructures1
• User:Lewisskinner/Sandbox/Template:SheffieldStructures2
• User:Lewisskinner/Sandbox/Template:SheffieldStructures3

Does anyone know how I can make version 1 or 2 expand to the full width of the page, like version 3? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 01:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's all in the class. Changing it to "navbox collapsible" should give the effect you are after. Whatever you use, Template 1 doesn't work for me, as the collapsed boxes overlap the frame. I wonder if it might be more useful, however, to split your template into multiple smaller ones: one for buildings in the city centre, one for sports venues, etc? Having so much in one template seems to make it more difficult to find the area of interest, and having more specific templates would allow a more comprehensive treatment of each section. Warofdreams talk 01:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, template 1 wasn't it for me either. Like I say, the main thing I wanted was for it to look like no2 (with the box round it), but be the full page width like no3. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 02:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tried that warofdreams - didn't work. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 17:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it to "navbox", which for this template should have the same effect. Does it still not fill the width of the page for you? It does on my browser. Warofdreams talk 12:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Warofdream, job done! I've added ver2 of this template to the mainspace at {{SheffieldStructures}}, and also to a few articles. If anyone thinks it needs a few more/fewer buildings, then say so.

I was wondering about the "Stations past and present" section, Is this worth having, since it basically duplicates (an in inferior manner) {{Sheffield stations}}? Maybe it'd be better to have a section here on infrastructure or transport in Sheffield, and include the major roads (if they have articles, ie Sheffield Inner Ring Road, A57 road, M1 motorway), stations, and the Supertram? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 01:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently adding a number of pages relating to the work of Aedas who are responsible for the design of the Wicker Riverside building which is currently nearing completion. I don't have time right now but would be more than hppy to try out your templates on the article I will be writing for Wicker Riverside. If you want to view my current work search for Aedas. There is an image of Wicker Riverside on that page.

78.148.193.240 (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created this page some time back (when new to Wikipedia) and rather thought he was obviously notable as SIG plc (a page I didn't create) is presumably notable. There is the Adsetts building at SHU for instance, prominent from Midland Station/supertram. The Adsetts are 100% Sheffield (there used to be Adsetts Ice Cream in the 50s). I haven't looked into notability criteria for business people. Anyway the article has been PRODded so I wondered if anyone has any views. I expect he's in Who's Who but have no copy to hand. -- roundhouse 15:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion has been opened at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London#Category:People from Ealing by district about upmerging local area categories for People from... into current local government boundaries only. This could have implications across the whole of England if carried through. Your are invited to join the discussion. The proposer is planning a massive merge by 22nd June if no objections are received. --Regan123 11:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notre Dame High School (Sheffield) has attracted various large boxes re notability etc. I've made various additions and added refs but still the box-ist is dissatisfied - does anyone have any further info or refs? (It seems very notable to me; listed building, connections with Mark Firth etc.) -- roundhouse0 12:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of schools has been a point of contention at Wikipedia for a long time, and may never be settled. There are many who think that all schools are inherently notable--though this is far from being the majority opinion (there is a good summary of various opinions towards the end of the talk page at WP:SCHOOL). Personally, I think that schools should be subject to the same notability criteria as everything else, but I would think that Notre Dame meets these criteria. Cite sources for all the major facts in the article and it should be OK—if the 'box-ist' is still not satisfied take it to WP:RfC. Alternatively you could AfD it to get consensus on notability, however, it appears that the article previously survived AfD so probably that wouldn't satisfy the 'box-ist'. The Pevsner Guide has some information about Oakbrook so I'll add a citation to that later. —Jeremy (talk) 13:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did consult WP:SCHOOL which seems to suggest that listed buildings are a sufficient claim. (I have no connection with Notre Dame school.) I would personally support inherent notability for any UK secondary school ... obviously it's the new ones such as Sheffield Park Academy which get all the publicity and google hits, google giving a relatively poor coverage to the press c.1855 when Notre Dame started. -- roundhouse0 14:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As some may have noticed, I have created a portal for the Yorkshire project. I have the basic shell up, so if anyone wants to lend a hand, feel free. Cheers! Fl1942 14:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 25 August Rutland Park, Broomhill (PROD by User:70.110.239.244; "Rutland Park is a distinctive crescent shaped street, starting and ending on Clarkhouse Road in Broomhill, Sheffield.") —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceyockey (talk • contribs) 00:37, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

I found the Middlewood article on the notability backlog. It would probably best be merged into the article of the appropriate ward. But which is it? Districts of Sheffield says it's Hillsborough, but Hillsborough, South Yorkshire does not list it. --B. Wolterding 15:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have assumed Middlewood to be in Hillsborough ward, however, the word Middlewood is marked on the council's ward maps in Stannington ward.[1] I'm not sure how large an area is actually encompassed by Middlewood—it looks to be just a few streets to the north of the old hospital. —Jeremy (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No longer reside in Dore. Mike0001 13:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a source? — jacĸrм (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the pages for these stations (Heeley,Millhouses and Beauchief) it mentions four platforms/running lines, two fast and two slow, but my understanding was that before the 1970s MAS resignalling there were a pair of lines for trains to Chesterfield->London and a pair for trains using the Hope Valley line. However before the opening of the Hope Valley line it may have been the case that there were slow and fast lines/platforms. Does anyone have any comments on me altering these? Talltim (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It amounts to the same thing. The Midland - London via Chesterfield and the MML New Road was effectively intercity/fast, whilst the Midland - Manchester via Hope Valley was a commuter/slow line, stopping at a lot of little village stations on the way. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 13:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not so convinced. In the past, when the stations existed slow trains would have stopped there on their way to Dronfield, Unstone, Chesterfield, Clay Cross etc) Not all trains using the MML would have been expresses. I'm sure there is a bit about in Batty's Rail Centres: SHEFFIELD Talltim (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were local services from Sheffield to Derby and Nottingham. On the 1900–1902 quadrupling of the tracks Batty states "... the original twin tracks being given over to Manchester trains and a new double line being built alongside, to the east" (p. 53), but later on the de-quadrupling he states "nearer to Sheffield Midland, the 1900 dive-under which took the down fast line under the up and down slow lines was taken out of use from 25 June 1972" (p. 122). Maybe many of the Sheffield–Derby/Nottingham trains skipped these stations? —Jeremy (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking that up, I meant to do it myself, but not yet had time. Sounds like the Batty book can't really be used as a definative source for this (good book as it is), or possibly the working pattern changed over time. Talltim (talk) 13:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked this up in some old timetables. By the early 1950's, all of the trains between Manchester and Sheffield via the Hope Valley line were "slow", stopping at virtually all stations. But there were also "slow" trains on the route from Derby as well. In the cab view film of a London-Sheffield train made in 1971, unless a train from Derby crossed to the Hope Valley line just south of Heeley, there was no other opportunity until after emerging from the dive under as there was no other pointwork that facilitated that. Batty must either be wrong, or referring to previous working patterns that were facilitated by points that had been removed by 1971. 82.29.215.181 (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional info. In the 1950s it was possible for a train to cross between the two sets of lines at Dore Station Junction, which was just to the north of Dore Station. But the normal operation of the Nottingham and Derby stopping trains appears to have been to remain on the London lines rather than cross to the Hope Valley ones. Despite this, I think that the lines were known as 'fast' and 'slow' respectively. However, the problem has been fixed in the articles by removing all references to fast and slow lines. —Jeremy (talk) 01:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had another look at that video. With the knowledge that there was a crossover there, you can easily deduce exactly where it was from the fresh ballast and junction signal posts with redundant poles on them. It must have been removed not that long before the film was made. The crossover the other way (i.e. facilitating trains from Manchester crossing to the line from Derby) was still there then. 82.29.222.238 (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems quite redundent. The Steel City derby covers the major derby and i've create Rules derby to cover the one between Sheffield and Hallam. The Sheffield derby should probably redirect to Steel City derby (possibly with a disambiuation message at the top for the Rules derby). Any objections or other ideas? josh (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In creating articles about early England footballers, I often come across references to Sheffield Albion F.C. but there is no article about this (defunct) club on WP, nor can I find much on the net as a whole. Can anyone add a brief history into the Defunct football clubs in Sheffield article? Cheers. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just gone on a moving spree although these should be uncontroversial. I have been moving many of the Closed stations just to ... railway station.

I have decided to do a requested move on these shown below:

• Oughty Bridge Station --> Oughty Bridge railway station
• Sheffield Victoria Station --> Sheffield Victoria railway station
• Sheffield Wicker Station --> Sheffield Wicker railway station

See Talk:Sheffield Victoria Station

Simply south (talk) 13:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back in 2005 I merged a lot of neighbourhood articles into articles about wards because 1) they were mostly very short stub articles and I felt that better articles could be written if a larger area was included, and 2) wards appeared to have official, verifiable boundaries which made it much easier to determine what was in which ward, whereas the boundaries of neighbourhoods seemed fuzzy and open to discussion. I just discovered that the city council has added neighbourhood profiles to its website (see [2]) that include boundary maps and population data. Does it make sense then break out more neighbourhood articles? —Jeremy (talk) 20:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, yes, I'd like to see more, in-depth, neighbourhood articles (linked from the summarised Ward articles). After all, the neighbourhoods existed, as hamlets etc., far before the modern wards (which are still subject to change, according to the changing political climate). Wikityke (talk) 00:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that, I've just had a look at some of the SCC maps, and have some doubts. For example, has anyone else heard of "Housteads" as a traditional district of the city? Bowden-Housteads Woods, yes, but Housteads dsitrict? (where's Bowden ?  ;-) ).Wikityke (talk) 00:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a few districts didn't really ever exist as hamlets (Hillsborough, for example), but otherwise I agree fully with Wikityke. Articles on neighbourhoods would be good, and most of the SCC neighbourhoods are fairly logical areas, but a few aren't really suitable. If we do move to articles on neighbourhoods, can I suggest doing what ever other city does, and use the {{Infobox UK place}}? Warofdreams talk 01:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan of the UK place box. The majority of information applies to the whole of Sheffield and it fails to include other useful info such as the ward and when the area became part of the town/city. It would also be more useful to show their location on a map of Sheffield. josh (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If those are your only objections, they can be easily remedied. I've implemented a map of Sheffield, and I can't imagine there would be opposition to adding the ward as an option for the infobox. I think that the date the area became part of the city needs explanation; for example, how do you decide when places such as Hillsborough or Attercliffe became part of the city (Hillsborough - southern part of Sheffield since it was developed, northern part some date in early C20?, Attercliffe - part of parish of Sheffield since its creation probably in twelfth century, but was long a separate township). Finally, I don't see that some of the information applies to the whole of Sheffield (and it's really only administration and emergency services; the constituency, postcode and phone number all vary) as an issue - for example, we usually state in the article that the suburb lies in South Yorkshire and the City of Sheffield, so why not in an infobox? Warofdreams talk 13:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the infobox to High Bradfield and Handsworth, South Yorkshire as examples, and it was already used in Ringinglow. How does it look? Would the ward be useful? Any other information? Warofdreams talk 13:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those boxes show my point. Only 2 of the items (postal area and constituency) vary from area to area. They are drowned in a mass of fields about county wide institutions. Anyone looking at these articles will either already know about Sheffield or would expect to get those details from the Sheffield article. If your looking for the distinct details of each area then they are going to be made more inaccessible due to the amount of repetitive material in the infobox.

Hillsborough wasn't annexed until 1919. Although the name is sometimes used for parts of Sheffield prior to that the area given by SCC is restricted to the immediate area of Hillsborough Corner. The borough/city would be used for annexation dates. Prior to the creation of the borough the town of Sheffield had no official boundary. Transport links and distance from the city centre would also be useful additions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshurtree (talk • contribs) 15:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I don't see it that way at all. If I follow a link to Dore or Bradfield, I wouldn't expect to have to look at the Sheffield article to find relevant information. In addition to the postal code and constituency, the co-ordinates and the location on the map change, as do the parish and population. While the information placing it in Sheffield doesn't change, it's pretty essential for the article. In addition, the Fox House area has a Hope Valley phone number, so it is worth stating that the remainder of Sheffield is all 0114. So the only non-essential items which don't change are the emergency services and European constituency. One issue with writing articles is that people tend only to put in what is distinct about an area - because it is more interesting and more easily referenced - and tend to omit what is less unusual.

A distance from the city centre might be useful, and could certainly be implemented, but I'd worry that it would be very difficult to reference. Do you have a proposal for how transport links would fit into an infobox? Wouldn't this kind of detail be better placed in the body of the article?

What you say about Hillsborough is interesting and would be ideal to put in the article, but it rather proves my point about it being difficult to explain all that in an infobox. Prior to the creation of the borough, of course the town was administered by various bodies covering different areas, but I would have assumed that being part of Sheffield would refer to either the parish or the township. I'm not too concerned how annexations is covered, and agree that they should be mentioned, but this will need more explanation than an infobox can provide. Warofdreams talk 19:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wishing to add my tuppenth-worth really. I do think that now we can have officially-designated boundaries, we can now start creating articles about them but, I do think we need to add to the sub-sections on the ward articles first, and then expand out/demerge only as the need arises (which it may not). This also gets us conveniently around the problem of "whoever heard of Housteads/Granville?" etc.

Another concern I have is the naming or articles as 'X, South Yorkshire'. We should either disambiguate with the borough council in which they are located, or the post-town (I'd favour post-town, as it is more useful to a reader). Saying 'Hillsborough, South Yorksire' implies that Hillsborough is a town in it's own right, whereas adding 'Sheffield' denotes it as a suburb.

Infoboxes. I personally like them, as they provide familiarity and a consistent look across all articles, but we would need some Sheffield-specific sections, such as ward and distance from the city centre (we'd need to decide where the 'centre' is)

Finally, i do not know who, if anyone, sanctioned a template for the districts, but one has turned up {{Districts of Sheffield}} which I think unnecessary (certainly at the moment). What do people think? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 17:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on when to de-merge articles. There's no advantage in creating a large number of stubs, while on the other hand, (for example) the excellent articles created by Mick Knapton would in no way benefit from being merged back in to the ward articles.

The South Yorkshire suffix follows Wikipedia's policy for all places in the UK with names which require disambiguation. A proposal which would have seen suburbs disambiguated by city was rejected, so changing this would really require substantial discussion elsewhere.

On the infobox, please put any suggestions at Template talk:Infobox UK place. I'll be happy to add any which gain approval - and I would certainly support the ward proposal.

Finally, I see that a discussion is under way elsewhere on the Districts of Sheffield template, so I'll leave discussion of that there. Warofdreams talk 02:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few of our articles use facts and figures that are cited to the Sheffield City Council website. However, reading their Sheffield profile pages [3] I noticed that they are copying their facts and figures (not to mention much of the actual text) from the Sheffield article. Although clearly only a small part of their website is copied from here, perhaps we should be cautious when using them as a source given the potential for circular sourcing. —Jeremy (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the article on High Storrs School (Sheffield), in the infobox, it states that the school was established in 1933. In the text, it states that the school was established in 1880 and moved to its present site in 1933. Which is correct? Coyets (talk) 12:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suspect the latter. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 03:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High Storrs School was established in 1933, but it used to be the Sheffield Central School between 1880 and 1933, when it was sited on Leopold Street. It was renamed High Storrs when it moved to its present site. The article maybe doesn't reflect this as well as it could. Pigetrational (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The list of companies of Sheffield has several that other than being a business with a branch in Sheffield (as most major firms have) are of no significance unless i missing something. As having looked at there web sites they do not list Sheffield.

Former Sheffield companies; There are a lot of companies of significance historically that started in Sheffield or had major branches / factories here. Should these not be also listed here till they get too big a list and then split. A lot of thes firms have now been taken over or gone bust. The cutlery and tool industry was significant but is poorly represented on here as far as i can see. (could be my search criteria, as you need the answer to ask the question in some cases of weird titles).

Significant Sheffield business premises; Atlas works, Hecla works, Cyclops,etc. As a lot of the redevelopment takes place the sites of these former premises ae disappearing but have cross reference value, to companies as discussed above. BulldozerD11 (talk) 03:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi There Mr BulldozerD11. D I know you from somewhere? ;)

I wholeheartedly agree. Some things, such as the Border and Immigration Agency, are frankly rubbish. this is a central government decision, not a Sheffield business.

The section need proof-reading, developing and a ruthless deleter to make any sense, or it may as well not exist.. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 03:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lewis we may have crossed before in Cyber space :)

Have split list in two and started checking relevance of co's listed.

Started a box like you did for buildings and looking for more Sheffield companies to add ( ones with articles if poss). Have a look at box in my talk/sandbox (Has blank place holders and ,sup. code left from original as considering coding entries) Not sure on format of how to split up Current and Defunct 2 separate boxes may be better and then sub divided into categories, but not sure on subdivisions to use.

There are a lot of articles out there that have a Sheffield relavence but not liinked to Sheffield, often created as part of other niche interest projects --BulldozerD11 (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like what you've done there Bully. I also like the companies template in your sandbox - a great idea, and probably a good starting base. Maybe when I have more time I ought to take a wander around the Brightside/Attercliffe area and photograph some of the old warehouses before they make way for development.

Additional discussion on the template's talk page. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 11:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tracked down articles for more companies and linked them now in the template for Sheffield companies. Can people check it out and comment, Not sure on split of sections. Is it possible to split box in 2 For current and Former, with the Trade sections repeated in each, with a Header Block across the split ?

Probably requires some of the companies moving to Former (defunct) section, Need to find some source data to write missing articles, with a bit of body to them to avoid a rush of AfD tags. BulldozerD11 (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed that a lot of the WikiProjects have a Assessment / Grading system on articles why is this not applied to Sheffield articles ?

Should the WikiProject Sheffield tag be applied to all Sheffield related pages found, as the project scope appears to imply that this is a reasonable action, or does this generate too many article to Audit ? BulldozerD11 (talk) 01:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An assessment/grading system is useful for co-ordinating a lot of active members - I don't think the Sheffield wikiproject is quite busy enough to require it. And if the assessments/grades aren't carefully maintained by a lot of active members then they'll just get out of date and lose whatever use they initially had, I reckon.

On the other hand, I reckon tagging all Sheffield-related articles so they can all be easily found from the wikiproject page is useful, and fair game even where somebody outside the wikiproject has written the article. --VinceBowdren (talk) 10:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sound a fair comment on the grading idea Vince, just thought i would ask having see it used else were on here.

I will tag Sheffield related article i come across, as often they only have limited links, and others may know more article they can be linked to or expand them. As seen a couple of items over zealously tagged for deletion before they can grow into useful article with a bit of work. If people are not aware of article how can they link to them thus defeating the aim of expanding the range of article in the encyclopaedia. Some sections appear to have been very heavily policed for references and others have non at all. ? ---BulldozerD11 (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi All.

I came across the above two articles, and felt that they dealt with essentially the same subject matter, and with a lot of overlap. I have proposed a merge. Perhaps anyone with any feelings on the matter can raise their issues in the discussion.

(x-posted at WP:Yorkshire#River_Rivelin_and_Rivelin_Valley) L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 19:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that proposal for Wikipedia 1.0 are moving forward, and are largely based on article ratings conducted by WikiProjects, I've set up Wikipedia:WikiProject Sheffield/Assessment and have begun assessing articles. Please feel free to assist with this, and also feel free to change my assessments if you disagree, preferably with a brief explanatory comment. If you have any questions about assessment, I'll be happy to answer them at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sheffield/Assessment or on my talk page. Warofdreams talk 20:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been keen on the whole article assessment thing, but this seems like a good reason to do it. I've added all articles linked as 'main articles' from the top level sections in Sheffield to the top priority; all grade I listed buildings as high priority; and all grade II* listed buildings as mid priority. —Jeremy (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I tend to agree with you on the article assessment thing; I've never bothered with it before, but it seems there is now a purpose to it. I also agree with your top level rankings. I don't agree that the grade at which a building is listed will always translate to a level of importance for our purposes, as the grades are based primarily on their national importance, rather than their local importance. Some of the Grade I listed buildings are important nationally and in their very local area, but of less importance to Sheffield as a whole, and some of the Grade II* buildings are barely known by most inhabitants of the city, so I'd prefer to put them down as low importance. Warofdreams talk 17:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think its the Right Move to actually assess the articles, as otherewise the adding the the Sheffield Tag was beginning to look pointless, thus I had mainly being tagging articles for other projects that were assessing articles recently ( i.e adding Yorkshire tags instead). Is there some reason why when I looked at the List of non assessed articles several were in fact assessed ?

Would comment on the above Buildings related comments that some of the lower grade building are probably a high priority locally. As With Companies for Example how can a local multi billion pound turnover firm be a low importance article ? Agree that only a few articles should rate as top level. Will also comment that the ratings given by other projects are not always relavent in the local context of project Sheffield. I'll start looking at rating some once I'ved cleared my watchlist backlog from my last 10 days wikibreak. - BulldozerD11 (talk) 01:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with almost all of that. On the companies, I could imagine a large local company being low priority if, for example, it originated elsewhere and has only a small head office in the city - I think that impact on Sheffield should be the measure, rather than size, although there will clearly be a correlation. Warofdreams talk 08:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I was using listed status as a rule of thumb, so I'm happy to see individual buildings moved up or down the scale based on local importance. —Jeremy (talk) 13:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help - Added the Assessment table and link to Assessment page to project page, but its clashing with next section ? . Have started on the list of Un-Assessed articles and note quite a few could do with info boxes and photos which some projects boxes have parameters for and will thus generate a listing of articles needing them - any comments ? - BulldozerD11 (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sheffield Central Library - on my reading of the assessment grading, it is Start / borderline C class, as has info-box, picture, references and reasonable amount of info. i.e its more than "Sheffield Central Library is an art Deco building in Sheffield" which is the basic definition of a stub. Comment please rather than me just changing it unilateraly -BulldozerD11 (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; I've removed the stub template and re-assessed as Start class. --VinceBowdren (talk) 11:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could do with some consensus as to where to put areas of the city. At the moment Attercliffe, Broomhill, Chapeltown, Hillsborough and Woodseats are given high priority, whereas areas like Crookes, Dore, Millhouses, and Wadsley have been given mid priority. Though there is some kind of hierarchy in the areas of the city (some are larger/more well-known than others), I'm not sure how this could be judged in a non-arbitrary way. —Jeremy (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The terms used in the template of importance and priority tend to imply diferent things, as different articles are also to a differing standard (class) and thus some would have a greater need to be broght up to a higher class (standard) than others. Were as some areas are more notable and associated with "Sheffield" as a whole by both residents and outsiders (rest of world) as you say. I think we rate them and any articles we feel are wrongly rated for class or importance we add to a section on here or the assement page for review (as we dont all have them on our whatch lists yet so would not see the discusion on the talk page). See comment about central libary grading above.

Noted/Well known Sheffield Areas, Buildings, Companies, and items associated with the city that the wider world is likly to be interested in and search will rate higher than say a pub in an obscure district. Its partialy down to the what is encyclopedic. when the real questions probably to define whats not.

I added comments to some pages or to my edit summaries partialy to indicate reasoning behind discion made. Im not 100% convinced by the notes added next to the importance grades on the Assement page. Its also a balance of do you have a few excelent articles that are all FA standard and some of poor stubs, or work on turning most articles into C-class & expanding coverage i.e more useful to a wider audience than a narrow interest group that the FA articles cover.

I find i get interested in loads of different articles and often shoot off at tangents when looking at articles. Bringing nich interest articles to a wider audience by linking and navboxes, tagging etc helps to build them from a stub and expose them to more editors is probably more important the wether an article has a High or low importance any way. The importance ratings mainly useful to try and direct some editors who may be atracted to high profile articles to target effort and it helps as the gradings then have a 3D form to them. (I stop rambling now)- BulldozerD11 (talk) 01:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done appart fron 1/2 dozen football related articles. (not realy my thing)

Now clearing un classified Importance articles (things with a strong assertion to Shefield will get Mid, others low). If anyone dis agrees with asigne rating discue here or on the article talk page. Am also working at adding the structures template to the may articles listed in it that its not yet attached to, and adding missing buildings with articles. - BulldozerD11 (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've rated those last few football-related articles. There are still many articles within the scope of this project which aren't rated at all, so plenty to do! Warofdreams talk 00:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, I also helping clear Derbyshires back list and started Doing lincolnshires (Tag & assess) instead of the Tag first that i did here and Derbyshire. Keiths assessed most of the Yorkshire stuff ive tagged. I keeep plodding along the partial ones now i partialy understand these auto generated cat lists. Then can go and find loads of new articles to add to project.

What inportance would assign to Atkinsons as a well know local company ? - BulldozerD11 (talk) 00:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we could do with some agreement on what 'importance' means. All other projects that I have seen use the criteria as a guide for readers as to how specialist/general any given article is. For example, this is the scale used at WikiProject London. As BulldozerD11 notes above, the scale could also be used as a priority scale to guide editors as to which articles they should work on. I think that either is OK, but at the moment we seem to have a mixture of both (for example, why is Endcliffe Park more important than Millhouses Park?). I personally think that the introduction of 'importance' into article assessment within Wikipedia was a mistake, but if we're going to do it then we need to make sure that we are all reading from the same hymn sheet. —Jeremy (talk) 02:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats generaly what I was getting at before as I got confused by different projects and have since discovered what the main cause was/is. The template Yorkshire are using & by porting Sheffield describes it interns of priority, but uses the parameter importance inthe template code. (The two terms conveying slighty different meanings to people.) I've modified Lincolnsire template as a test but it takes time for the changes to work through (done as only a few hundred articles tagged yet, so better to fix before tagging more, as less server load). Agree the concepts slightly ambiguous, but if interpreted in the right way dose have a purpose. like the extra parameters on sume projects that generat useful lists of project specific needs identifed for articles like photo needed etc. (refs would be a good project specific parammeter to tag & flag up the state of as come across some articles rated B class with no refs section and minimal sources to speak of listed.

A general guidance section on the project/ or Assessments page is one way to go. Do we draw up a list of main topics say and then asign the general level and nominate the exceptions ? (for entry to Top and High ratings) as the rating goes part way to the scoring for bot selection for the DVD (dont think it effects this one, as initial lists already done 'I think' ?). Thats my 2pence (again) - BulldozerD11 (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just read through the Sheffield article and I think that it could do with some TLC to avoid being put up for FA review. I think that the 'Sport' and 'Culture and attractions' sections are particularly poor—the sport section reads like a collection of random facts and the culture and attractions section has almost no references. I'll try to do some work on it over the next few days, but any help would be appreciated. Thanks, —Jeremy (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just been through doing some copy edits for the DVD release and would agree with the above comments. There are several sections of the article that are unreferenced and several of the existing references are dead. I have updated the ones I can find and marked the dead ones. There is also much repetition of information through the article and I cannot work out the relation of Sheffield as a city to the City of Sheffield local authority area as the article seams to cover the two things - unless of cause the 2 are coterminus. Keith D (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the step of adding a User Box for the project, but feel the background should be different from the Yorkshire one. Any Sugestions for the Colour without getting into a 'Red v Blue' debate. - BulldozerD11 (talk) 12:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the colour to white for now (the common element of the two club strips). But if anyone disagrees, please feel free to revert me. Warofdreams talk 21:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I forgot to put note here that I then picked a colour to match the Sheffield City Councils Logo Font light Blue as the green would look like the Derbyshire logo (after id added above note). But Whites probably a Safe bet - BulldozerD11 (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about a light grey to represent Stainless steel for the back ground - BulldozerD11 (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Think it would be an Idea to add a Photo parameter to the baner then we can get a list of articles that want photos adding to. (as used by some projects) instead of trying to remember which need them a list can be printed out. Any comments ? - BulldozerD11 (talk) 02:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think that many other projects go too far with all the parameters they put in their banners. It seems to me that the time they spend identifying and categorising all the things that could be done to improve the articles in their project would be better spent actually improving the articles. I kind of like the unobtrusive nature that this project has had in the past, but if we were to adopt more proactive approaches I think that doing 'collaborations of the week/month/some other time period' would be a better way to go. —Jeremy (talk) 04:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are various articles in Category:South Yorkshire which could do with coordinates, if anyone feels like adding them (I find this quite interesting but others might not, of course).

The articles are in Category:South Yorkshire articles missing geocoordinate data, 199 pages at the moment. Wikipedia:Geocoding how-to for WikiProject members gives tips for doing this. (If the 'missing coords' tag is inappropriate, just remove it.)

Incidentally there is a very nice online set of OS maps from the 40s/50s such as this one for Millers Dale which mark old railway stations amongst other features. Occuli (talk) 14:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5 South Yorkshire articles are missing geocoords; this score will auto-update, please get it down to 0 --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of making a change to the organisation of the History of Sheffield article. The change is small but it will allow for easier integration of new sections.

Currently the article is ordered roughly chronologically:

• Lead
• Early history
• The origins of Sheffield
• Mediaeval Sheffield
• Industrial Sheffield
• The 20th century to the present

I'm thinking of going to something like this:

• Lead
• Early History
  • Prehistory
  • The Romano-British period
  • The origins of Sheffield
  • The mediaeval period
• Industry
• The 20th century to the present

This change doesn't require any re-writing, but would allow, for example, a section on Sport, and one on Religion to be added following the Industry section. Both of these have played an important role in Sheffield's history but are difficult to write about within the current article structure. Any comments? Thanks, —Jeremy (talk) 21:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The approach of having sections covering the history of Sheffield by topic sounds good to me, my only objection would be that a casual reader might assume the article didn't include anything on general history between the mediaeval period and the twentieth century. Clearly industry was very important during this period, but there were other major influences (religion and sport, as you mention, plus politics, and perhaps some comment on social history). Each of these topics remains important to the present day, and all but perhaps sport can be discussed in the mediaeval period, too. I wonder if a structure along the lines of:

• Lead
• Prehistory
• The Romano-British period
• The origins of Sheffield
• The mediaeval period
• The industrial era
• The 20th century to the present
• History by topic
  • Industry
  • Religion
  • Sport (etc)

might work? These history by topic sections could be fairly brief with links to the main articles on each topic - which I would think should include a good historical perspective. Warofdreams talk 00:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WP:Sheffield!

I've been adding some tables and maps of the modern and former district boundaries to each of the metropolitan county articles, including South Yorkshire. These are based on the one originally at Greater Manchester, something which helped it towards WP:FA. I'm hoping to achieve a bit of consistency across the six metropolitan county articles through these additions.

As said at WP:YORKS, I'm a little horrified by the state of Yorkshire's two metropolitan county articles, and South Yorkshire was particularly bad. To say it's a "Top" priority article for WP:YORKSHIRE and one very relevant to Sheffield, I was disappointed (sorry!). I've done my best to expand it outwards a little borrowing some generic stuff about the LGA72 and metropolitan counties from Greater Manchester, but really these two pages need TLC from members of this project.

The bare bones for an FA-achieving layout, as well as generic bites about governance, structure and so on, could easily be pinched from Greater Manchester (which has all the references and page numbers listed). I'm confident also that some of the text and photographs gathered for Sheffield's impressive and extensive series of articles would be suitable for inclusion at South Yorkshire (look at Greater Manchester for ideas perhaps?). I'd be willing to help anyone with building South Yorkshire up to a B-class or GA. Hope that helps, --Jza84 |  Talk  22:50, 14 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 06:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might it be a good idea to add Article Alerts to the project page? Thoughts welcome! Pigetrational (talk) 21:00, 8 March 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.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:40, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

DShamen (talk · contribs) has created the above category with a number of subcategories for the districts of Sheffield. (S)He is now systematicly moving all the biographies of people from Sheffield into the new categories. This seems to be over categorisation and will be hinderence to anyone looking for Sheffield biographies. It also has the problem that most people will have lived in several areas. Anyone else have any opinions? Eckerslike (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bad idea. DShamen (talk · contribs) should be asked to stop and consult; or they could all go to cfd. Occuli (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they are being moved from the Sheffield Category to the new sub categories it is definitely a bad move as most people will not look in obscure sub cats to find people, on the bigger scale of WP people are looking for people by city not village, will confuse the issue. The article should cleary state were they are from in the lead any way. If its an new extra category then over categorisation argument is probably a reasonable one as they will have few entries in most of the areas. The Sheffield category also relates to the List of people from Sheffield as if people are not in the list, the logical place to look for them is the attached Category. - BulldozerD11 (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like DShamen has been doing this allover as numerous discussions (Messages) about issues on their talk page here User_talk:DShamen. would indicate a lot of concerns about over cating in other areas as well. - BulldozerD11 (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is exactly what he is doing - see this diff. Occuli (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there support for a cfd to upmerge all such as Category:People from Broomhill back into Category:People from Sheffield? DShamen has put anyone whose article mentions Broomhill (eg those born in Broomhill or who went to KES) into Category:People from Broomhill. I was born in Cambridge and went to KES but I am not from Broomhill or from Cambridge. Occuli (talk) 11:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are Wikimedia UK - the group of local Wikimedians helping the Foundation to create "a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge". Love Wikipedia? Based in the UK? Can you support us in projects such as generating free-content photographs, freeing up archive material and media relations? Or are there other projects you'd like us to help with? if so, please click here to Join up, Donate and Get Involved

AndrewRT(Talk) 21:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any comments / contributions / corrections etc. will be very welcome.. Wikipedia:Books/Sheffield_UK

regards, Wikityke (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried generating the PDF (and Open Office format) document via the Wikipedia Book rendering routine without success at several points during the preparation of the book. It now has >500 wikipages so it's over the recommended limit for these formats, but even at around 250, I had no success. Maybe it should be divided in volumes (parts) 1, 2 and 3 ? Wikityke (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Pedia Press" option can, apparently, supply, for somewhere close to US$100 ! (in 2-3 volumes) Wikityke (talk) 02:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Split into 3 parts- Wikipedia:Books/City_of_Sheffield_(Part_1_of_3), Wikipedia:Books/City_of_Sheffield_(Part_2_of_3) and Wikipedia:Books/City_of_Sheffield_(Part_3_of_3), but still can't generate a download file Wikityke (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had to divide into 5 volumes to render as PDF-

Wikipedia:Books/City of Sheffield (Volume 1 of 5)

Wikipedia:Books/City of Sheffield (Volume 2 of 5)

Wikipedia:Books/City of Sheffield (Volume 3 of 5)

Wikipedia:Books/City of Sheffield (Volume 4 of 5)

Wikipedia:Books/City of Sheffield (Volume 5 of 5)

Wikityke (talk) 00:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Sheffield 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a cfd for the various subcats of Category:People from Sheffield (district). Occuli (talk) 14:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the Sheffield article will soon be delisted as a featured article. Reading through the article I have come to the conclusion that this is not necessarily a bad thing. The last time the article received any major work was during preparation for the original FAC back in 2005. It seems to me that there are a number of sections in the article that could do with a complete overhaul, so trying a quick fix to avoid being delisted would probably be a bad thing in the long run.

As it is the main article for WikiProject Sheffield, I think this project's top priority should be to see the article returned to featured status. We have previously never done collaborations of the week or month as some other projects do, but I propose that the Sheffield article become the focus of the work of this project until it passes a new FAC. Anyone in? —Jeremy (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Arctic Monkeys/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded a picture of Vulcan on the Town hall if anyone thinks it might go anywhere. It occurs to me that a picture from the big wheel in Fargate would be better but I suffer horrendously from acrophobia ;-( so I can't get one. TheresaWilson (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since several of Wikipedia-Books are Sheffield-related, could this project (and other art projects if they see this) adopt the book-class? This would really help WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as the WP Sheffield people can oversee books like City of Sheffield much better than we could as far as merging (there are several books on Sheffield, and they all seem to be slight variations of one another), splitting (some books are huge), deletion, content, and such are concerned. Eventually there probably will be a "Books for discussion" process, so that would be incorporated in the Article Alerts.

For those who don't know much about what books are about, essentially Wikipedia-Books are collections of articles, which you can arrange in a certain order, separated by chapter an so on (see Sheffield). This compilation is meant to be read like a book, and can be downloaded electronically, or ordered in print. (If the link previous link doesn't work, try this link, but it may take a couple of minutes to generate, since this one is pretty huge).

There's an article in last week's Signpost if you aren't familiar with Wikipedia-Books and classes in general. You can also check WP:Books and Help:Books for more info. Or contact me. (I'll watch this page for a while though). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:20, 12 December 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) 03:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 Sheffield 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!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is the right way to bring this up but I would like to bring it to someone's attention. The Charnock artice has a large section on flooding in the area, the article has no references to speak of. We also appear to have a day by day account of how the 2011 floods are affecting Charnock. This is obviously make believe. As I'm sat in Chrnock not underwater and this cannot be backed up on the net I think it should be removed. I don't want to get into any edit wars over this and I can't imagine if I remove the flooding information it will be removed for long. Demoneatgod (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Main Sheffield Article (Sheffield) is quite a big mess, especially the Travel section. Things are repeated several times in differant sections and there are some pointless sections that can be covered by other sections. George888 (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! The Sheffield article is now a bit more organised (that was quick!). Thanks to everyone who helped sort that out. But there are still most of the repetions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George888 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Buildings and structures in Sheffield article is a bit out of date. There are things about projects that didn't happen and things that 'will' happen that have happened. Let's try and sort it. George888 (talk) 16:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry George if I appear blunt but if you're attempting to reword Buildings and structures in Sheffield, would you mind doing so in an encyclopædic style? Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 17:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Sheffield Wednesday F.C. 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. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Sheffield/Article alerts has been created; generating Article alerts for this WikiProject. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the title says, I'd like to join this Wikiproject. My main focus would be on Sheffield Schools and businesses. --Boweruk (talk) 12:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you do not have to ask. The project is not very active at the moment. Keith D (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

For further information, please see Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in the United Kingdom.

If you have any queries, please post them not below but on the Organizers' help page on Commons.

Anything you can do to help improve these lists will be much appreciated. The final deadline for cleaning up is 31st August.

--MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone!

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.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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]

I'm pretty terrible at creating Wikipedia articles, or using Wikipedia generally, but thought Sheffield Gang Wars was an important page to create, particularly due to a resurgence of interest in UK gang crime (mostly thanks to Peaky Blinders).

Anyway, I wasn't sure which Infobox to use and ultimately butchered creating my own so could need some help with both adding to the page and fixing the Infobox Syntax, thanks. Steel-Centurion (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated History of Sheffield 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. Z1720 (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2021 (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]

I'm getting a bit confused trying to work out which neighbourhood the former Hyde Park Flats are in.

The Park Hill Flats (which is basically four buildings connected together) are in Park Hill, Sheffield correct?

The Hyde Park Flats which I'm pretty sure are now Harold Lambert Court and Castle Court with St Johns Park Church in the middle, are all in Hyde Park, Sheffield correct?

Or are the Hyde Park Flats also in the neighbourhood of Park Hill, Sheffield as that's what Google Maps seems to show?

Does the neighbourhood of Hyde Park, Sheffield even exist anymore? Danstarr69 (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hyde Park and Park Hill are close to each other, but Hyde Park is not part of Park Hill (the two neighbourhoods in part being separated by the hills in the area). I'd only really associate the Hyde Park name now with the flats and perhaps the church. The Manor Oaks area was historically part of Hyde Park, but I doubt that people living there now would say they were in Hyde Park. Warofdreams talk 22:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like an image of Florey Lodge, which is at 8 Endcliffe Crescent, Endcliffe, Sheffield. (Google street view) for the article on Howard Florey. He lived in the house when he was a professor at the University of Sheffield in the 1930s. If someone could snap a picture for me, I would be most grateful. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I lived there last year! How can I send you a picture? Ehlalmimeett (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2023 (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) 14:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm looking for some help with regard to identifying references to meet notability criteria for a defunct Tinsley business which was a significant contributor to big regional infrastructure projects over several decades; Stephen Toulson & Sons. My submission on the subject was recently declined as the references I have used do not show that the subject qualifies for a wikipedia article. I have tried to use newspaper articles with more significant coverage of the business. I am not aware of any books that have been published with significant coverage of the company and would appreciate any guidance or advice from more experienced users, particularly those who have contributed to the Defunct Companies category.

Note, I have also declared a COI for transparency - I am the great great grandson of the founder. The business was sold before I was born and I have no other affiliation nor stand to gain in any way.

Thanks! Adam.toulson (talk) 06:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam.toulson: Hope you do not mind but I have copied this to WikiProject Yorkshire as that page is more active and may get more response. Keith D (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, that's brilliant, thanks for the help! Adam.toulson (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i've improved the I Monster page lately and wanted it reassessed by the wikiproject. thank you. I would personally assess it somewhere between C and B. thx again. 222emilia222 (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]