Template talk:Yorkshire

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Yorkshire Template:Yorkshire is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles

The Administrative divisions section currently only covers the major "counties" of North, East, West and South Yorkshire. I was about to add Teesdale but decided to hold off until someone can suggest a list of generic terms like this for the areas of Yorkshire under the administration of other "county councils". I think the remainder are in the Pennines, but don't know of a name to group them by. Yorkshire Phoenix 13:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about simply 'Main administrative divisions' and 'other areas'? Owain (talk) 13:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I need to clarify my question. I'm looking a nice single name, preferably an article title, that groups all the Yorkshire towns villages along the Pennines that were ceded to Lancashire and Greater Manchester in 1974: something like Teesdale. Yorkshire Phoenix 13:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saddleworth is a large area of moorland and villages that was annexed by Lancashire in 1974, that's all I can offer, sorry if I've been no use. M A Mason 16:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Well it seems you edit the saddleworth article fairly regularly, so nevermind. Still the best I can offer though. M A Mason 16:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is usual to use these templates to side link articles. I note this template has been used far beyond this:

• Allertonshire
• Ardsley
• Bradford
• Burley, Leeds
• East Riding of Yorkshire
• Headingley
• History of Yorkshire
• Hornby, Richmondshire
• Huddersfield
• Ilkley
• Kingston upon Hull
• Kiveton Park
• Leeds
• Leeds Rhinos
• List of places in Yorkshire
• List of Yorkshire people
• Londonderry, North Yorkshire
• Middlesbrough
• North Riding of Yorkshire
• North Yorkshire
• On Ilkla Moor Baht'at
• Pool-in-Wharfedale
• RAF Church Fenton
• RAF Topcliffe
• Ripon
• Selby
• Thrintoft
• Wales, South Yorkshire
• Wath, North Yorkshire
• West Hauxwell
• West Riding of Yorkshire
• West Yorkshire
• White Rose of York
• Wombwell
• Yarm
• Yockenthwaite
• York
• Yorkshire
• Yorkshire Day
• Yorkshire dialect and accent

Shall we look to removing those not directly linked? MRSC 18:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have since updated this as outlined above. i.e. I have removed it from articles that are not linked on the template. MRSC 23:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the yorkshire box? It's relevent in the geography section, you don't make clear why it shouldn't be used also that have been no comments and you've only waited 2 day before acting. Have reverted Bradford, and it is at least relevent in the Yorkshire article. Nate1481 23:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bradford article mentions and links to Yorkshire already. These navigational templates are supposed to be placed only on articles featured on the template, as a method of side-navigation, they should not be arbitrarily added to any article associated with them. MRSC 23:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template links to the list of Yorkshire places and thus each of those places should link back. Yorkshire Phoenix 00:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is an argument for the List of places in Yorkshire article to contain this template; and it does. This is not a special case and does not warrant special pleading. MRSC 11:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"These navigational templates are supposed to be placed only on articles featured on the template" Erm says who.........--ElvisThePrince 16:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC) (Reverting your change on Bradford BTW)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. If you want to group articles there are three methods: Categories, lists, and series boxes. What function does adding this series template serve? If someone wants to learn about Yorkshire they can follow the link already in the article (say from the infobox or text) and then access the Yorkshire series of articles. How many settlements are there in Yorkshire? We have articles for many of them, what value is added by putting this on them? Should we do this for any other county location articles? No; it is unnecessary. MRSC 16:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No where in Wikipedia:Article_series or Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes does it say "These navigational templates are supposed to be placed only on articles featured on the template" ( at least in my quick skim, I may have missed it), and what difference does it make if the Yorkshire template is placed in each article on settlements in yorkshire or for that matter any article on a "Yorkshire" subject (if the article maintainers think appropriate), reuseing the template (i.e. what a template is surposed to be used for) actualy helps reduce duplication which is a Good Thing ^TM (see first para on Wikipedia:Navigational templates) given that there is already some proven worth to this perhaps your question needs to be framed "What value is lost by putting this on them?", so I ask again who says "These navigational templates are supposed to be placed only on articles featured on the template", if you feel that it shouldn't be on Bradford (or any of the other articles you have removed it from) the place to make your case is here, fair enough the inital removal, but after 2 sepeate editors have undone your work it's obviouse that there is at least some disagreement with your view and it's time to start trying to reach a consensus!, annoying I know but true.--ElvisThePrince 17:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that I have removed some of these templates as well. Anyway, the thing is : the box is big and ugly and apparently originally designed solely that Saddleworth could have a big white rose on it. The application of the template reminds me rather of an animal urinating to mark its territory. Also, frankly, the idea that this argument should be made on 100 different talk pages, all at once, is possibly the most absurd idea i've seen today. Morwen - Talk 17:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm sorry but that sounds like an argument to redesign the template one less ugle (in your view) and whilst their may be discussion on the merits of any redeign this is an entirely seperate issue, note: I have no problem with initialy removing the template from the articles, but when it becomes obviouse the maintainers of the articles themselves disagree (i.e. by reverting your removal, more than once in this instance) then it becomes time to make you case (unfortunatly on a case by case basis as there seems to be no set policy on the matter, although I'm open to be proved otherwise). Ahhhh Edit conflict in the middle (BTW good show on the WP:CIV) if you don't like making the argument on 100 talk pages perhaps you should have not removed it from 100 articles, as there IS NO (still waiting to be shown otherwise) policy on this then if you want to make a MAJOR change (which the removal of this template is) to these articles you are going to have to make your case on their talk pages, again annoying but true!!--ElvisThePrince 17:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elements of this discussion from ElvisThePrince are incredibly rant-like and confrontational. There is no need for this approach. MRSC 17:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"maintainers of the articles themselves"??? Who would these be, then? You seem unfamiliar with Wikipedia practices if you think that means anything - please see WP:OWN. But really, stonewalling and saying we have to discuss this in 100 places is not helpful. Actually discussing the substantive issues might be helpful. Do you want to do that? By the way, where am I not being civil? Morwen - Talk 17:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(De-indent) Firstly you mentoin WP:OWN well perhaps the following para would be helpful :"Although working on an article does not entitle one to "own" the article, it is still important to respect the work of your fellow contributors. When making large scale removals of content, particularly content contributed by one editor, it is important to consider whether a desirable result could be obtained by working with the editor, instead of against him or her - regardless of whether he or she "owns" the article or not."

I'm certainly not claiming ownership (remebering I wasn't the only editor to revert the changes) but simply respecting the views of fellow contributors and asking you to do likewise, the fact that they are spread across 100 articles really isn't my fault (but yous seem to have made it your problem).

Secondly Stonewalling? How is asking for some justification of the statement "These navigational templates are supposed to be placed only on articles featured on the template" stonewalling, as I see it you two feel that This template dosn't belong on pages other than the ones within the tempalte itself, am I correct? Given there appears to be no consensus for this project wide (at least not one I an find) you have a number of options:

1. Propose and get passed such a policy, then enforce such.
2. Remove the template from the offending articles, however people who have contributed and/or watch them may disagree with your view at this point and revert your changes you can then:
   1. Accept there is no consensus project wide and you don't want to/can't show one.
   2. Get consensus on each article to remove them, yes I know this option is a pain but there you go I can't do anything about that, I didn't remove it from the articles and I didn't then snap revert when others restored it.

Thirdly I think that claiming that a valid complaint is the "most absurd idea i've seen today" to be heading toward uncivility (User:Mrsteviec's comment was certainly unhelpfull to you in this instance if only by association)--ElvisThePrince 18:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is sensible to discuss this issue in one place. There are no separate, per-article, issues to be raised - the box should either be on Leeds and on Bradford; or not on either. You may be right in that there is nothing specifically written down legislating common-sense use of article series boxes: however this is certainly how series boxes are intended to be used! Look at say the box on Politics of the United Kingdom. Whilst this may or may not be on a few articles that it doesn't presently link to: it certainly would be inappropriate on every article about a UK politician. I find it particularly hard to characterise this addition for example, as anything other than an attempt to use Wikipedia as a soapbox : this so-called series box might be more accurately characterised as a soapbox, in fact - the article was left dominated with an infobox about a place that the mainstream considers it no longer part of. Could you at least outline the set of articles that you think this should be on? Should it be on every article about someone born in Yorkshire (if we were to accept that since List places in Yorkshire is on this, then every one of those places has a link, then i note that "Famous people" is linked too, so that logic would imply that all of those people get this soapbox at all? if this case isn't being made, it sounds even more like an attempt to mark out territory) Morwen - Talk 20:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand me I'm certainly not saying it should be on *every* article about a place or person from/in Yorkshire, however I'm also not saying that it shouldn't be used on *some* articles about places or (unlikely but posibley) people from Yorkshire, in fact as Ive said 2 or 3 times already I had no probem with initaly removing the template from the articles BUT when a number of editors undid the change you (and User:Mrsteviec) should have respected their view, and here is my point the removal of the template *should* be taken (lacking any policy to contary) on a case by case basis, therefore your point about it being on Bradford or Leeds is missing the point it's pretty obviouse it should be (if the consensus of the editors agrees of course) used on both but this because they are both large detailed articles (and the subjects are major conubations within Yorkshire). Equaly I would fully support anyone removing the template from Mickleton, County Durham (for exactly the reasons you outlined) *However* what about the rest of the 100, what about Headingley, what about Yorkshire Day? Well I'm afraid they are "separate, per-article, issues" and the fact that there are a lot of them doesn't stop that being the case no matter how anyone would wish otherwise.

This can only mean accept it when others to undo the removal OR the case by case persuasion that it *should* be removed from any particular article, Sorry!--ElvisThePrince 21:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have failed to provide a single reason why you think this should appear on the Bradford article. Keeping the discussion to the content of the template and the article, and leaving the motives of other editors aside, what encyclopedic function do you think adding this will serve? MRSC 21:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well seeing as you want to actively remove a reasonably large amount of information from Bradford yet have failed to provide a single reason why you think it should not appear and all I have seen thus far is that "These navigational templates are supposed to be placed only on articles featured on the template" without any evidence to back up the assertion and that the template shouldn't be on Mickleton, County Durham (the removal of which BTW I agree with), and seeing as this is a "separate, per-article, issue" perhaps you should do so here.--ElvisThePrince 21:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is, as I noted earlier, a big ugly box. No further design refinements cannot be made: it is a big ugly box of links by design. It was then placed on lots and lots of articles without concern for their appearance. Preferably these types of series boxes should go at the immediate top-right - if not their utility as a series box is lost. In the case of places, we tend to have another big ugly box at the immediate top-right of the article - an infobox, which contains lots of actual place-specific data. Given the fact that it is (a) big and ugly, (b) not in a useful place to be used as an article series box and (c) is not terribly useful (in that it just provides links, not thing-specific data), this points towards limiting its use, as is custom, to a side-linking thing. Just because a thing contains information (or links) isn't in itself a reason for it to be there. I'm afraid if appealing to a sense of æsthetics isn't working, I'm not sure what I can further do. I further don't accept this is a "per-article issue" as you keep insisting. Can you give me a single reason why the box might want to be not in Leeds but on Bradford? Now, I'm glad you support it not being on Middleton, County Durham : this means I now can be sure you are acting in good faith in the matter. Morwen - Talk 22:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained that I do not think it serves any function there and certainly not the function that side-linking templates are designed to serve. You, on the other hand, have not explained what purpose it would would serve there. Your argument seems crafted for arguments sake and is, frankly, offering little more than distraction. MRSC 22:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems then we are talking æsthetics in which case all I can say is that I think it looks fine in the Bradford article and that the collection of links to variouse "Yorkshire" articles is a useful inclusion and (by implication) so do the at least 2 other editors who reverted the removal, in which case I really can't see how the inclusion or not of the template can be anything other than a per-article issue, "Does it fit and look good in this particular article?", I also can't give you a single reason why it should not be in Leeds whilst remaining in Bradford as for the purposes of this debate they are so similiar it would be like providing a reason why it should be in West Yorkshire and not in South Yorkshire, beyond that it looks/works/fits with the rest of the article. Also I certainly don't support it in Middleton, County Durham but not because (as was the stated reason for it's removal from Bradford) it's not one of the links in the template, but because the size and focus of the article as it stands means that the template simply dosn't fit/work, I think that's it's possible (although of course v. unlikely) that the Middleton, County Durham article could be expanded and refocused such that inclusion of the template would be appropriate.--ElvisThePrince 22:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC) (Post edit conflict) User:Mrsteviec thanks for desribing a good faith attempt at rational debate and persuasion little more than a distraction your commitment to WP:CIV does you proud. User:Morwen rest assured I won't allow User:Mrsteviec's comments to colour my view of you or your argument.[reply]

Two editors have clearly explained their position and you have accused them each, individually of incivility. Repeated attempts to bring you to make a concise argument have failed with little more than rhetoric as a reply. In short, this conversation has become a distraction from the writing of an encyclopedia by its long and pointless nature. Please take some time to consider your approach to discussions about content in future. Most editors are only too happy to discuss content and they have the right to do this on an amicable, rational and non-confrontational basis. MRSC 23:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would a more sensible solution not be to include in the box stuff like Yorkshire day etc, to make it a better template? This could then be used to reduce the about of repation in differant articles. While I don't think it should be in every article related to yorkshier would not having it in the major cities and in articles on people who have a notable associaltion with yorkshire, e.g. Richard Whitley, be sensible and useful? The purpose of an encyclopeadia is to provide information not to look pretty, while looking good is helpful in convaying info it is not the be-all and end-all of it. The Q should be will the box be of interest/use to someone who know's nothing about the place/person/event, i.e. is the association with Yorkshire important? Hope that all made sence it's 4 in morning & felt had to say something Nate1481 03:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The usual practice in your two examples of 1) major settlements and 2) famous people would be to construct a side-linking footer template like template:Constituencies in Yorkshire and the Humber and place it at the bottom of each of the relevant articles (mostly to keep it out of the way). I'm not necessarily saying I support this; but it would add more value than adding an unsightly box with a random collection of information associated to a larger geographical area. Should we be adding some form of template:England or template:United Kingdom box to each of these articles too, because we think the reader might learn about them? No. If the reader is interested in the geographic circumstance of place they will follow the links in the text or the infobox; this is their purpose after all and the nature of a wiki. And then there is Richard Whiteley, should there be a template:Channel 4 box on his article? or template:Diabetes? or even template:Yorkshire? No, it would just be adding junk where the simple solution of a wikilink already exists. MRSC 05:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok person not necesarlity best example & maybe people are less relevent. However major settlements I think should keep it. Especialy the county towns Nate1481 23:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I note User:Yorkshire Phoenix (194.203.110.127) has been re-adding this template to various articles again despite a discussion taking place. Can I ask for some words of explanation? MRSC 14:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest it looks to me like you pretty much withdrew yourself from the (ongoing) conversation when you threw your rattle from the pram [1] without actualy addressing the points the points raised so I can understand why he would be doing it but I havn't been in any form of communication with him so thats only a guess, it should be noted that you continued to remove the template despite the discussion taking place so it's pretty much 6 of one 1/2 dozen of the other, but hey I reply with "little more than rhetoric" so what do I know.--ElvisThePrince 14:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have just proved my point again by the way you have chosen to reply. MRSC 15:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto--ElvisThePrince 09:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do you think we should add links to the 4 lists of civil parishes to the template? Keith D (talk) 10:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure it's needed - each list is specific to the county, so just needs to be listed from the article on the county. Have improved links just now. PamD (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the change made by this edit. It is much clearer now. MRSC • Talk 14:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, looks good to me too. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good move, much clearer than before.--Harkey (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]