Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mills

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Mills page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Mills Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Mills, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mills on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MillsWikipedia:WikiProject MillsTemplate:WikiProject MillsMills articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Hey, looks great, are you/we open for business? Here, for consideration, is a list of U.S. places listed on the National Register of Historic Places with "Mills" in their name. Am placing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mills/NRHP-listed mills. Cotton mills, water mills, all kinds. :) I think the logo pic is really great, especially. doncram (talk) 07:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been through the lists, and assessed those that appear to fit this WP. A lot of stubs and start class articles there. Mjroots (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we're open for business. I think I've tagged all our articles now. <g> Mjroots (talk)

Where can one see how many articles are in the project, and at what quality level? Perhaps that will be shown on the main project page, but will be placed there by some bot in a few days? In the project page, wow, the list of 40 DYKs is impressive! It rather seems like this wikiproject has been chugging along for a long while, already! doncram (talk) 09:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the template to the project page. Importance ratings not showing atm. It may be because we are new or maybe something needs tweaking. If they're not showing in a few days then I'll shout somewhere for help. Mjroots (talk) 10:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with the project (noticed the banner added to a slew of pages on my watchlist!) I thought it would have a fairly exclusive scope, but I can see from the DYK list that this is clearly not the case!

I know it is to one side of your realm, but if you can keep an eye out for articles that should be included in some kind of steam power-related category, but are not yet so identified, that would be great, thanks.

'fraid I am already part of too many projects to join, but I wish you well.

(Why isn't there a 'steam' wikiproject yet?) (Rhetorical!) -- EdJogg (talk) 10:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ed. Always room if you ever decide to join. If you come across an article that you think should come under the project please add our template to the talk page. Mjroots (talk) 10:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Tell you what, I'll leave this page on my watchlist, along with the other 5 or 6 projects that I watch (they're all pretty quiet!), so I can see what's going on. Cheers. EdJogg (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've assessed a good number of articles. Currently there are 75 unassessed articles. These require assessment for class by someone other than myself because I've had significant involvement in all of them. Personally, I don't assess my own articles unless they are lists.

A second priority is to check all C class articles to see how close they are to meeting B class criteria. Mjroots (talk) 08:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've assessed a few unassessed articles as B (they have inlines and an image etc.). Hope that's not too high a grade- if that's OK I'll run through the rest. Ning-ning (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the articles I've created are going to be at least C class. If you've read the B class criteria and are happy that they are B class, then grade them as B class. Mjroots (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we were all pretty much agreed with the task force's project's scope per the discussion at WT:HS. However, if there are any issues that need discussion, this is the place to do it. Mjroots (talk) 11:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should this WP cover hydroelectric power? Mjroots (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest not, as a complete topic. The only thing you're really interested in (from this project's POV) is the turbine -- you wouldn't want to tag dams, for example. But a water turbine such as the little one here in Guildford would fit, seeing as how it's effectively a horizontal water wheel with a generator sitting on top, and the project's scope already includes modern wind turbines.

EdJogg (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts were that we should not cover this either. Mjroots (talk) 07:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. I can't remember the example's name, but we have one mill that went from using a stationary steam engine with a rope drive, to using the steam engine to drive a generator set that powered the individual electric looms. If the water turbine was used for that purpose- it would be in scope but where the prime aim of the generator is to produce electricity for a external grid it would be out of scope.--ClemRutter (talk) 08:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that the hydro-electric facility was just a natural evolution of the power canal - I think it therefore IS in scope, especially since you often see the US waterworks protected under a separate NRHP unique identifier from the mill buildings. Jane (talk) 08:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've put him in the category of millwrights (but he was much more), but didn't add a project tag. If others think that the category is correct, please do add a tag. Smallbones (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged. Mjroots (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need a Barnstar. I'm sure there are project members who are deserving of a WP Mills barnstar so we should design one. I'm no expert in creating these things so I'll bang my ideas around and see what comes out of it.

Something based on File:Molen-ster.svg but with five sails, minus the star, and revolving (anti-clockwise, like most windmills) in a style similar to File:Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif. Anyone want a go at making one? Mjroots (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look when things get quieter.--ClemRutter (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put this together. It doesn't spin, but I think it's pretty good.
--Gyrobo (talk) 03:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User WP Mills is now done, and the participant cat created. --ClemRutter (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might be useful to add this on the main Project page (near 'participants'?) -- EdJogg (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Mjroots (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a list for each Greater Manchester borough, and ones for Cheshire, Lancashire and Derbyshire. That should keep us going for a while. I have entered a some mills into each, but there is no consistency in the approach I have used. Eventually, the list would be placed in a table as we see on List of mills owned by the Lancashire Cotton Corporation Limited but I am still not convinced that the headings are right.

As an interim measure, any format seems better than none and that is defined by your source material. If the source is Owen Ashmore, then List of mills in Lancashire appears useful.

Comments please. --ClemRutter (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo! We need a whole list of lists to navigate through (list of Mills in Europe, North America, etc., down to the municipality level). Starting from the municipality level is also fine. Jane (talk) 08:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am cautious about naming anything 'the first' during this period of history. Fortunes were made by establishing patents, so fictitious claims abound, you only have to try to unravel the claims of Thomas Highs and the famed Arkwright to see how folk were deprived of royalties by a clever legal claim. Later generations have become partisan supporting the underdog, and converting myth into accepted history- for example James Hargreaves Spinning Gin- becoming named after his 'non-existent daughter 'Jenny'.

The move from water power to steam power again was not cut and dried. The first steam powered mills still had waterwheels, the steam engine was used pump water into the lodge to increase the head for the waterwheel. These were used before rotative engines. Many mills can claim to be a first mill to use various aspects of steam power. --ClemRutter (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but put it this way, Albion mill used the steam engine to power the machinery directly. It did not have a waterwheel. Mjroots (talk) 05:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Have to research it further. We can say it was the first Boulton and Watt mill in London. The key text from Farey 1827 p442 http://books.google.co.uk/books?output=text&id=bfvNAAAAMAAJ&jtp=442

The First Establishment of Steam-mils, 1785 to 1793.

Messrs. Boulton and Watt executed their first and greatest work of this kind in London in 1785 and 1788, at the AIbion Mills, which was a new establishment for grinding corn, entirely by the power of Mr. Watt's new rotative engines. The mills were contained in an elegant and commodious building erected under the direction of Mr. Samuel Wyatt, by the river side, at the foot of Blackfriars Bridge; and two engines were made for them at Soho, by Messrs. Boulton and Watt, each rated at 50 horse-power, or equal in all to the power of 150 horses working in concert. Each engine worked 10 pairs of millstones, or ^0 in the whole mill, of which 12 or more were generally kept at work with the requisite machinery for dressing the flour, and other purposes (a).

— John Farey On Google books

The sentence is ambiguous. We need to check out earlier chapters in the book to see if Rennie or Savery hadn't succeeded in a small way else where. Farey was London based. Instinct tells me that there was probably a small test mill built first elsewhere.

Farey then goes on to write the WP article for us! --ClemRutter (talk) 08:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.powerhousemuseum.com/collection/database/?irn=7177 Gives a reference to a Boulton and Watt 1785 engine in a London Brewery. --ClemRutter (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...so you may be interested in Powerhouse Museum, and more specifically, Boulton and Watt steam engine (Powerhouse Museum)

:o) -- EdJogg (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Albion Mill was certainly the first steam-powered corn mill (and needs an article), but there were a number of earlier examples of using a steam engine to power machinery indirectly, by pumping water to drive a waterwheel. This probably needs an article. I saw (or heard it suggested that Coalbrookdale was the first case of this, but it was done for several 1750s blast furnaces. Farey will be out of copyright. John Wilkinson had a steam powered hammer before Albion Mill, but it knocked itself to bits. My impression is that steam power was little applied to driving mills before the 1790s. Another early case will be the lap engine at Soho, used - I think - for polishing metal. Indeed this may be the experimental engine that you seek. Sorry, this is from memory, so that I cannot quote references. We probably need to start off by building up a list on this, perhaps Early steam mills. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is great stuff! I think the Albion mill is the first *practical* mill, but in the Netherlands we had a Bolton&Watt garden folly (extra sidenote: the building plans were ripped off and never paid for because it was seen as a marketing ploy for Bolton&Watt in the Netherlands) at Groenendaal Park in 1781. Jane (talk) 08:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about the steam engines that pumped water on to a water wheel or pumped it back up to the mill pool. They go back long before B&W. It is all a question of what you mean by a "mill". Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, we mean where a steam engine directly powered millstones and was the sole power source, as opposed to being used as an auxiliary power supply for a wind or water mill.

I agree that some of the Shropshire blast furnace engines were providing auxiliary power, but at Madeley Wood Furnaces I do not think there was any other source of power. The water probably came from the river Severn, below the level of the furnace and was pumped up to a reservoir that was little more than a penstock above the furnaces. This is probablty the most extreme case, but there are others. A steam engine was built at Horsehay in 1755 similultaneously with the furnace. In some of these cases, it may be the brrok that aided the steam engine, not vice versa. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So we have guidance for the future.

I have found an article River Ingol, with a redirection from Snettisham watermill. Do I slap a {{WikiProject Mills}} tag on one or both, then walk away? Do we somehow tag for a future bifurcation? --ClemRutter (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged it as low importance. If a river article deals with a large number of watermills then it can be listed as mid importance. I'll leave the redirect for now, as there is a problem with getting Project class and Disambig class to display as such. I suspect that redirect class would probably be the same. There's no reason why Snettisham watermill can't have its own article if anyone decides to write it. Mjroots (talk) 07:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone have any thoughts on the format of the lists. What columns do we want/need. List of mills in Lancashire is one approach then List of mills owned by the Lancashire Cotton Corporation Limited is another approach. They are not mutually exclusive and certainly should not be prescriptive. Any thoughts? --ClemRutter (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First thought is that it needs retitling to List of cotton mills in Lancashire. There is also List of windmills in Lancashire which probably needs referring to via a hatnote and vice versa. Eventually we'll probably get round to "List of watermills in (county)" too, so another hatnote there. Were there any woollen mills in Lancs? Mjroots (talk) 08:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any woollen mills? Yes, and worsted, and, linen, and silk, and fustian, and corn. Often the mill would start as one, then change to another, then change back again. Then in its decline, it would rent out space so one end would be silk and another company was working worsted and another cotton waste. Its motive power would start as water, then steam would be introduced, and maybe it would revert to water before installing central electic motor, and then having individual motors on each machine. Mill is the correct title!

In 1860, Lancashire and Greater Manchester had 1920. This was before the expansion of the industry in to its zenith in 1926.

	Lancashire	Cheshire	Derbyshire
Mills	1,920	200	25
Workers	310,000	38,000	12,000

Williams and Farnie have 1112 identified surviving mills in Greater Manchester 1985 , 1005 are extant(1992), 779 were cotton, 24 cotton waste, 77 woollen, 8 were silk, 167 bleach or print works, 57 were other. Back to the question.--ClemRutter (talk) 08:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, tricky one this. Still say we need the hatnote for the windmills. What I have in mind for the various lists of watermills is something similar to the various lists of windmills. - Location, name and grid ref, function, river, first mention/built, last mention/demise, photo. How would that fit in with the Lancs list so far? Mjroots (talk) 10:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I've looked up the meaning of hatnote :) Sure- that's an obvious requirement.

List format is more tricky. Is can be a holding page like Lancashire, or more complex like Shaw and Crompton where each item is a mini infobox, and a starting point for floating an article. We need to supply several interest groups- the 'millspotters', the steam engine/water wheel buffs, the researcher into architectures, or equipment. I can see a progression where we support several formats- where the simple will evolve into the more complex. A sort of Stub, Start, C, B, Featured List. Do cruise around the different lists in Category:Lists of textile mills in the United Kingdom to see the state of play.

I do think that all grid references should be converted to //coord// format so each list displays them on a map using //:GeoGroupTemplate//: as you know http://www.rutter.uklinux.net/ostowiki.html does the job on individual locations but I haven't attempted to write a batch convertor. But that has started me thinking! --ClemRutter (talk) 11:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the best geographic classification system for water mills is by the river on which they stood, or perhaps catchment. This will not do for wind or steam mills. Nevertheless, we probably cannot manage to list them all. Booth (Warwickshire Watermills) lists about 180 in that county (and probably missed some). I count 286 in the appendix (for those in use since 1660) to Trinder, Industrial Archaeology of Shropshire.

Classification by river may not work for tide mills. JeffreyTBest (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage the use of grid references (so that OS maps can be used to locate them), but WP seems to like lat/long-ditude coordinates. I would like to see a column for the use of each mill - corn, cotton, woollen, iron forge, blast furnace, etc.; also dates of operation. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer {{oscoor}} for grid refs. Clicking on a grid reference produced by the template gives the lat/long coords anyway. Mjroots (talk) 12:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the issue about the incorrect Helmert transformation has been solved, but until it works with {{GeoGroupTemplate}} I can't see much use in {{oscoor}}. For location work I have almost abandonned 2 1/2 inch maps, they lack precision- and most of the youngsters that I encounter will always do a screen dump of a Google map rather than invest in a paper one.--ClemRutter (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have thought one way forward may be (Not to be prescriptive, most sections optional)

Infobox

Lead

Location

History

Construction (Architecture)

Power

Equipment

Later extensions

Usage

Owners

Tenants

Notable events/media

See also

References/Notes

Biblography

External links

Mills are often grouped into clusters cf Murray Mills so we may need a model for groups of mills. The template above, could still be used but for each mill in the group we should repeat

Construction (Architecture)

Power

Equipment

Later extensions

and possibly

Usage.

Location is important for it is here we write about the water sources, and the mill community which it generated and other notable buildings in the neighbourhood. I have experimented with this format at Bath Street Mill- here I had no details of the construction, so that remains blank. Any comments or thoughts.--ClemRutter (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing that needs doing is to create "infobox textile mill". I'm sure that {{Infobox Windmill}} will give you some ideas. I'd say that the owners would probably sit better under the history section. Also, railway companies need spelling out in full instead of being identified by initialisms of the first use. Mjroots (talk) 07:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Infobox Mill building}}has been created in draft, and is in use at for example Houldsworth Mill, Reddish. Technically infoboxes are limited to 50 parameters and to be really inclusive I needed more. It needs scrutiny, for though it works for my limited number of test cases- it is a bit clunky. --ClemRutter (talk) 08:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can cut the subsequent owners out. If a mill has had a number of owners they can be listed with dates using <br> between each entry. I've used a similar method with ships articles such as SS Empire Galahad. Mjroots (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That's a serious template. Is there any mechanism for sub-templates, or scope for separate secondary templates? I'm thinking that, for example, the steam engine section could be self-contained and used only when required.

EdJogg (talk) 10:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This seems far too complicated to me. In my view infoboxes should be short and to the point: name; location; uses; dates. You have been writing about cotton mills, and have included a long section on this, which would be better in a separate infobox on cotton mills with details of machinery, but would it not be better in the text? Certainly, steam powered mills need to be dealt with separately from water-powered ones, and wind-powered ones. I have recently been advising concerning a site that was successively a fulling mill, a paper mill, a scythe mill, a grinding mill for porcelain works, and a forge, all within 100 years. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great feedback. Direction is needed. The point where I stumble is with this change of use. Later mills in Oldham are a piece of cake- but earlier small ones!? Water mills brought in auxiliary power- and then ditched the water wheel, but the wheel pit is now of more interest. There are certain key dates of interest that are useful for comparison: 1860 (Cotton Famine), 1926 (Peak), 1951 (before the collapse of the LCC) among others. What is the focus? I think the later ownership pattern is significant for economic historians. I have barely researched woollen, worsten, linen or silk. The nice thing about templates is they ignore fields they don't understand. --ClemRutter (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have a quite substantial body of literature on ancient and medieval mills, mostly in English. Especially in the former field there has been a fascinating almost complete reversal of opinions with constantly new ancient mill sites being discovered, to the point that the degree of mechanization then and its impact on the ancient economy is currently reassessed. I am glad to share the articles here with you, just drop me an email through the WP system. Best wishes Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a developing subject. The most recent substantial work is Lucas, Wind, Water, Work. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article about De architectura, a treatise written by the Roman architect Vitruvius, may be of interest. -- EdJogg (talk) 09:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A reviewer for DYK has questioned whether the Norfolk Mills website is a reliable source. The comments by Gatoclass are Hmmm, well I'm not really sure that Norfolk Mills qualifies as a reliable source but I'll give the article the benefit of the doubt as you have a second offline source.. As I'm currently working through the surviving windmills in Norfolk, I'd like the opinions of other editors as to whether or not the website is considered a reliable source per WP:RS. Mjroots (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norfolk Mills is written and published by Jonathan Neville. According to WP:RS this is a self-published source. Neville is a commercial photographer, and probably not a recognised expert in mills. Despite the copyright warning on the site, many of the images may not be in copyright- for example [1]- these get categorised as copies of old 2d work in the public domain and therefore not copyrightable.Ning-ning (talk) 06:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the website is published by Jonathan Neville. However, if you care to go through that page you linked to, you will see that sources are quoted, which is why I generally trust the info presented on that website. Agree re the copyright status of those photos, but not everyone understands that copyright does expire, and once expired cannot be brought back to life. Mjroots (talk) 17:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was taking the wikilawyer position :). Ning-ning (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be regarded as an RS at the moment because of its self-published nature and that Neville does not appear to have published previously in reliable third-party publications. I suspect that a good case could be made to any interested party that it is an RS though. Ning-ning (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glancing at a sample water mill, it is obviously a well-researched compilation from published and/or archival sources. As such, I would have few qualms about citing it. Technically, it is probably not peer-reviewed, and so technically not WP:RS, but it is probably as close as your are going to get without getting down to archival research oneself. Ideally, I would have liked to see it citing its sources more explicitly, but many of them are there in the text, so that it is pretty close to the RS standard. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Participating, I've given a look at the website, that seems very well done, but it doesn't really pass the RS guidelines; that said, due to the wealth of information and the fact that he often sources it's content I would be open to it's use, but I feel it would be better to limit it only to those parts that are referenced and quoted, while where he quotes but without mentioning the name of the source its use should be avoided. To remain on the mill previously mentioned, there the first two quotes have no mention of the source so should be avoided.--Aldux (talk) 23:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aldux, can I clarify that we are talking about the post mill at Billingford? If so the first paragraph is referenced (White's Directory for 1845 and 1864). The second paragraph is unreferenced, but there are alternative reliable sources for that information. The information presented in that paragraph is referenced further down the page. Mjroots (talk) 07:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you're correct, I'm speaking of the Billingford mill. As for the first paragraph, I wasn't careful, I didn't think the passage was from White. As for the second paragraph, better if it's referenced further down; what's important in my view is to avoid paragraphs that are unreferenced so to avoid embarassing questions like "where does this quote come from?". Just my 2 cents.--Aldux (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(od)Thanks. I take it that the general consensus is that the Norfolk Mills website is a RS as long as the info used from there has a source quoted. Mjroots (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the consensus re the adding of James Watt and Matthew Bolton to this WP. If added, what would be the importance rating. Would they both rank high (William Cubitt, Andrew Meikle) or would mid importance be better? Mjroots (talk) 07:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments both ways but no. There are engineers, and are well looked after by other projects. We won't be doing Savery, Newcomen, etc. We would want Arkwright- because he did construct mills rather than just provide a bit of useful kit that was put in side. I would be happy to include the firm of Boulton & Watt because they were actively involved in the process of building mills --ClemRutter (talk) 08:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged Boulton and Watt and Richard Arkwright. Arkwright Jr would appear to fall outside the project. Mjroots (talk) 09:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The B class criteria assessment is now up and running. All articles of B class and below need the B-class criteria adding to the talk page. Mjroots (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B class articles are all done. They drop to C class if no parameters present. Mjroots (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a start on C class articles. Mjroots (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done A, B, C

This list has been moved to List of windmills in Greater London. I specifically created these lists using the historic counties because the historic mill sites were in the historic counties. The vast majority of them had been demolished long before London was expanded in 1888 to form the County of London. The move has been done under WP:UCC. which states This guideline documents an English Wikipedia naming convention. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception.

WP:PLACE, General guideline #1 states If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used. This is why I used Middlesex and not Greater London (which encompasses parts of Kent, Surrey, Essex, Herts and Middx (but not all of Middx)).

Therefore I'd like to ask what is the consensus on returning the article back to Middlesex? Mjroots (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Per rationale above and WP:PLACE. Mjroots (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We use current counties to organise information. These articles relate to - and are part of - the history of Greater London, West Yorkshire, Merseyside. MRSC (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The mills that still stand are part of the history of the current counties, which is why they were duplicated as necessary with adequate notes provided as to what was where. Those mills that had been demolished before the counties were created should be dealt with under the historic county concerned. Mjroots (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The arrangement of the Yorkshire lists by Ridings was accepted by WP:YORKS for the same reasons as stated above. Mjroots (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of windmills in London adequately explained the situation regarding the five counties. The current list includes Twickenham, which is in Middlesex! Greater London postcode area is N, E, SE, SW, W, EC, WC. Not TW, UB, HA, CR, SM, RM, IG, WD etc. Mjroots (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now we have the likes of Category:Buildings and structures in the West Riding of Yorkshire existing at the same time as Category:Buildings and structures in West Yorkshire. This is the kind of conflict it causes. MRSC (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Easily solved by making the Riding a sub-cat of the modern county. Mjroots (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Well the arrangement wasn't exactly "accepted" by WP:YORKS as no one actually said their thoughts aloud after you explained your reasons for using historic counties, however silence could be interpreted as agreement. I do believe that for consistency we should use modern administrative boundaries. Since the lists covers windmills as well as later cotton mills and the historic boundaries were not intransient, I'd argue that it makes as much sense to use modern boundaries as historic ones. Nev1 (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? There are no wind powered cotton mills that I know of in any of the lists. We are talking about the lists of windmills here, not the lists of cotton mills. Mjroots (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misread the title and thought it was list of mills (in general) in Middlesex. I still think that since the boundaries of historic counties were not intransient we should use the modern ones. Nev1 (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think your misunderstanding about the boundaries of Greater London explains things. Twickenham is in Greater London. We use the current ceremonial counties of England, not postal geography. MRSC (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of this explains how WP:UCC overrules WP:PLACE though, does it? Mjroots (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That does not apply as these structures listed and categorised are not purely historic. For example, in the current area of Greater London (which includes Middlesex) we have erstwhile mills and others that are still extant, it is therefore appropriate to use the current name "Greater London" in the article title. MRSC (talk) 19:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

99% or more of all windmills are historic (demolished), therefore WP:PLACE should apply. Mjroots (talk) 19:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do not organise any other UK articles that way and there should be no special pleading for these. MRSC (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that WP:PLACE is WP:WORTHLESS? Mjroots (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that the use of current counties is adhering to that policy. So I guess you can't be convinced otherwise. MRSC (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try and find a way around this.

Possible solution:-

All mills & sites to be listed under current ceremonial county. A footnote to be provided to all entries that were previously in a historic county (with dates if the mill was standing at the date of a county boundary move). All applicable county lists to have a subsection for historic sites, duplicating entries under current ceremonial counties. This would affect most of the County lists. List of windmills in Scotland would also need to be dealt with. Mjroots (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Yes, all structures should be listed in the article relevant to the current ceremonial counties. So for example, List of windmills in Greater London will absorb some entries from neighborouring lists. Footnotes would work fine for detailing any changes. Taking this approach we could produce some maps with locations on too as we have mapping data for the current boundaries. MRSC (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the bit about county lists and historic sites? Mjroots (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you proposing to split the lists into currently existing / former sites. If so, I think this is a good idea as when you look down the list it is not immediately obvious which ones are currently existing. MRSC (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, mills currently standing are in bold, those with articles are wikilinked. What I am proposing is that there is a section at the bottom of the list showing which windmills formerly stood in (e.g. Kent) and whose sites now lie within (as in this case) Greater London. Mjroots (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of having to duplicate entries why not append the historic data in the table. You could add "(then in Kent)" either after the location or possibly the build date. MRSC (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because all the main book sources list the mills under the historic counties. If someone wants to find out more about Keston Windmill and has a copy of either Coles Finch's or West's book and the look at the Kent list and it isn't mentioned, they might not know to look for a Greater London list. I'd rather they found the info instead of going away empty-handed. Hence the need for duplication in these cases. Mjroots (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An example of what I am proposing is this proposed version of the List of windmills in Kent.

Duplication of lists is not usually a good idea, but I can understand the desire for completeness. Another approach would be a note of explanation pointing to where boundaries have changed and the other lists to consult. MRSC (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is getting puerile, and by the time this is resolved the wretched boundaries will have changed again. Anyone living outside the M25 knows where Keston, Kent is. Kent includes Bexley and Bromley-the inhabitants are Kentish Men. Look at Coles Finch which must be the starting point for molinologists; list after list and all using pre 1933 boundaries. Anyone researching or reading about the mills will be thinking in a 19th Century timeframe. Cotton mills, as well, were all built before 1926. One can safely assume that a child doing a project on mills in a north London borough could understand a {{main}} template with the text For Windmills in Kenton see List of windmills in Middlesex. The policy is there to allow this- so why waste the readers time in trying to impose a uniformity that will never exist. I could expand this argument to other conglomerates- Tintwistle, Cheshire is another favorite- one stroke of the pen and the village was switched from the North West region to the East Midlands. Worse when I refer to capacity of the combined mills, or population density in each county- the stats for new counties cannot be deduced from the collected 1926 figures. While in the majority of cases using modern authorities is correct- applying it religiously causes resentment and confusion. Put simply there are other dragons to slay. --ClemRutter (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about this? Will check back in morning for replies. Mjroots (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that many of those mills are not in the ceremonial county of Kent. The parts that were transferred to Greater London are in the ceremonial county of Greater London. The introduction is therefore incorrect and misleading.

I really think you are going to cause tremendous problems for users with an insistence on using political boundaries as they existed at a certain point in time. Counties have never had stable boundaries, and locations have found themselves transferred from one county to another ever since the term was first used. Trying to stabilise the list on a point in the past simply does not work.

The version of the historic counties that you are using is basically the ones that existed in 1972 (with the exception of those around Greater London, where the year 1963 is used). That says it all. The casual user needs to know the history of local government reform in this country to be able to understand it. And why choose 1972 or 1963? Going further back, Todmorden was in Lancashire.

To be able to comprehend the list as it stands I need to know which parishes were transferred between, for example, Cambridgeshire and Suffolk, and when it happened (there were some). Most of us will look at a map of Lancashire and not realise that a number of its parishes were transferred from the West Riding of Yorkshire in 1973, and therefore would not dream of looking in the Yorkshire list. And how many of us will realise that a mill in Cumbria would be listed under a county on the other side of Morecambe Bay? It is far easier for the majority of us not arriving at Wikipedia from an obscure book for windmill enthusiasts to simply look up a location on a contemporary map and then look under the list for the county shown. Skinsmoke (talk) 03:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skinsmoke, the problem is that many of the mills themselves never were in the current ceremonial counties. However, the ground upon which they once stood is now within the current ceremonial counties. Generally, I've gone by the pre-1974 counties. With London the mills were listed under the pre-1888 counties per sources used. There are a few other anomalies, such as the moving of the border of Norfolk and Suffolk in 1893.

I've created a sub-page to this talk page to enable editors to see what the proposed article will look like. Former locations are named and a link provided to inform readers where to find info on those locations. I've had to remove the display of one image as it is a NFU image. This method creates the least amount of duplication. Mjroots (talk) 05:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This approach (list articles entirely based on current ceremonial counties) satisfies our policies, although the UK-wide list also needs to be updated to reflect current areas only. MRSC (talk) 05:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had seen the notation in the first Sandbox version about Kent including those areas transferred to Greater London, and hadn't realised the mills had been removed from the list and cross-referenced at the bottom. The latest version on the sub-page stops idiots like me (well, it was late and I'm struggling with swine flu) making a similar mistake. Can't see any problems with it now. Go for it. Skinsmoke (talk) 07:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<copied from User talk: MRSC> Can I ask you please not to make any changes to categories, lists etc while this is still under discussion. It looks like the issue re the lists may be reaching a consensus but there are still other issues to work out. Mjroots (talk) 07:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC) <end copied text>[reply]

We have reached a consensus over the lists and will now use current geography. What else is stopping us making these changes? MRSC (talk) 07:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yourself and Skinsmoke seem to be satisfied with the compromise I have proposed Other editors may have a different view, should we wait a while before implementing these changes? The other issues include the categories discussion below. The major headache is going to be referencing everything on the Greater London list. Other lists with entries moved will also need attention paid to referencing. There is no problem with moving images as I have been very sparing in the use of NFU images in the lists. As far as I know none of those are affected that way. Mjroots (talk) 07:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'm focussing my activities on mapping at the moment. These locator maps will help to reinforce the information in the lists and will remove any possible confusion about what area is being covered. BTW I've noticed Upminster Windmill and Colney Heath Mill, North Mymms have incorrect geocode data in the articles. I haven't updated them, I guess the sources you have used have the grid refs? MRSC (talk) 08:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same for Cromer Windmill, Ardeley. I think in the last two a "-" is missing from the longitude. It might affect others. MRSC (talk) 08:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected those three. Clicking on the linked OS Grid Ref will give the correct coords amongst a host of other tricks. Had a few E and W's mixed up :-/ Mjroots (talk) 08:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The List of windmills in Greater London now has all entries from the Herts, Essex, Kent and Surrey lists added. Referencing needs attention, two of the refs need converting to footnotes. Mjroots (talk) 11:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This really is a fantastic improvement. Greater London didn't just spring into being one day in 1965, the region has developed and operated for several hundred years, and this article is now detailing a part of that story. MRSC (talk) 11:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Can I ask the experts on this project for some help. I've added an image of Walton Windmill in Walton, Somerset and to List of windmills in Somerset, but I'm confused about the date of construction. Images of England says "probably 1793" & the list says 1741 - with no reference but implying this comes from Windmill World which I don't have a login for. Any help appreciated.— Rod ^talk 19:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1741 is correct per source quoted at bottom of article. The source quoted in that work is Southampton Industrial Archaeological Society Journal 2, 1976. Mjroots (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In common with other former buildings and structures articles, these should go in categories of the form Category:Former windmills in xxxx. MRSC (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, they could, but those cats will be fairly empty as I'm concentrating mostly on creating articles for the surviving windmills at the moment. Suggest leaving as they are atm. Mjroots (talk) 07:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do we cover mills like Thrigby Windmill (new buck on old roundhouse, intended to be a working mill eventually), Great Mill, Sheerness (new smock on old base, residential) and Ringle Crouch Green Mill, Sandhurst (new smock on old base, working as a wind generator and also residential)? If they are listed by county as currently done there isn't a problem.

Obviously there is no point creating the category in areas where no articles exists. By former buildings and structures, we mean those that no longer exist at all or are ruins. For mills, it doesn't matter if they are working order or not. MRSC (talk) 07:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem arises - Fowler's Mill is categorised as a "Former windmill in London". The mill was in Surrey when it was built, and still in Surrey when it was demolished. The ground it stood on didn't become a part of London for another 63 years! Mjroots (talk) 07:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a problem. We categorise by current geography. MRSC (talk) 07:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we go with that, is there any objection to Category:historic windmills in (county) also being created, said cats to be sub-cats of current counties (except middx - sub cat of windmills in England)? Mjroots (talk) 08:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have things like Category:Historic buildings and structures in Middlesex. We only use the current counties. MRSC (talk) 08:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a start on the mapping of current mills at List of windmills in Surrey and List of windmills in Greater London. The template I have used is easy to adapt and we have map data for every current English county, just replace "Surrey"/"Greater London" with the relevant place. MRSC (talk) 07:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice map. Two problems

• The table rendering leads to different width tables in Firefox.
• {{GeoGroupTemplate}} is missing --ClemRutter (talk) 08:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain (and hopefully provide a remedy for!) the Firefox point? {{Location map}} is very widely implemented - is there a problem that needs to be addressed? As far as I can tell {{GeoGroupTemplate}} is not needed as external links are already created in each article, so it would duplicate them. MRSC (talk) 08:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not with the county map- but the formatting of the data tables.--ClemRutter (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When we update the county lists, we should put the co-ordinates in for all entries (including former) and then use {{GeoGroupTemplate}} to externally map them. MRSC (talk) 08:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding in all sites is going to make the maps very crowded. Better to stick to surviving mills. Mjroots (talk) 13:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Although what I think ClemRutter is saying is that if we add co-ordinates to the main table and then add {{GeoGroupTemplate}}, a link is created to all the sites in Google Maps, which might be okay for former sites. MRSC (talk) 13:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, well Clem is the expert on that subject. Will leave it to him to sort out. Mjroots (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't much fancy entering all those co-ords either. MRSC (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is good mindless work for those lazy summer evenings.--ClemRutter (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am off on a months wiki break, and one of the problems I taking with me is how one separates data from formatting in lists. I have discussed this briefly with Nev1 on User talk:Nev1#List of mills in Tameside., and will be experimenting with creating a template, so the end user can type a line such as

• {{mill|North|Milltown|SD 935001 {{Coord|53.498|-2.099|display=inline|format=dms}}|Mr Capitalist|1790|1935|1960|architect=Bloggs|Notes=Blah ipsem lorem}}

It will them be formatted in a uniform manner: maybe sortable like List of mills in Fall River, Massachusetts, or multiline as in List of mills in Shaw and Crompton. What ever, any tweaks to the format will then apply to all lists- and no data will need to be reentered. .... leaving more time for you to enter the missing co-ords! --ClemRutter (talk) 16:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where do we discuss this? Mjroots (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here.--ClemRutter (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or at motorway services somewhere near the Millau viaduct. --ClemRutter (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This mill is also known as the Jaffa Gate Mill. There is a dispute over whether the alternative name should be included in the lead and infobox. Input welcome at the talk page. Mjroots (talk) 10:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further Mjroots's post, there is an RFC here, so your opinions are being actively solicited. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, with another editor I have an article up for DYK, Lake Linden Historic District, which refers to a "stamping mill". Would it be correct to link that term to the stamp mill article? And/or to redirect stamping mill (currently a redlink) to there? But, from the usage there, I get the feeling that a stamp mill is a small, individual machine unit, not a huge plant like the iron ore crushing factories of the upper peninsula in Michigan. Help from the experts here, urgently needed! DYK deadline is closing, must have this article improved! If u can help, please directly improve the Lake Linden Historic District artile. Thanks! :) doncram (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the redirect. "Stamping mill" describes the method whilst "stamp mill" is the name of the machine to do the job. A wikilink from the article would be appropriate. Mjroots (talk) 03:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently about 40 unassessed WP Mills articles. These are all articles I've created. I don't feel comfortable assessing them myself so would prefer someone else to do the assessment. Any volunteers? Mjroots (talk) 08:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone reassess Cotton mill particularly Criteria B 1- citations.--ClemRutter (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Shudehill Mill, Manchester you will see it is in two projects. It has tags for both on the talk page- but on the see also section there is {{portalpar}} code. Several questions. Do we need one? Should they be on each article? If they are there, is there a bot that would then autotag the talk page? --ClemRutter (talk) 10:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, From WP:P, it seems that Portals are a Wikiproject's "Main Page". and it would probably be a useful thing to have. Mjroots (talk) 11:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems entirely appropriate for it to be of interest both to a topical and a topographic project. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Just created List of ancient watermills. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Followed up by List of early medieval watermills. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Newlin Mill is the first mill article that I've started and would appreciate any help you may offer. The linked video of an operating 1704 gristmill may be especially interesting. I'd like to put it directly into the article (i.e. like an image), but suppose that I'd have to get the mill foundation to release it with a free license. They let anybody download it, but I suppose that is not good enough for Wikipedia. Is it possible to use a video under "fair use"? Smallbones (talk) 16:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just popped over and had a look, and it was very detailed and informative. There is little I can say to improve it. But that is a sort of cop out, while repeating it is good, maybe you would appreciate a little more.

For textile mills I try to fill these sections, and sometimes almost succeed!

   * 1 Location    * 2 History    * 3 Architecture          o 3.1 Power          o 3.2 Equipment          o 3.3 Later extensions    * 4 Usage          o 4.1 Owners          o 4.2 Tenants    * 5 Notable events/media    * 6 See also    * 7 References          o 7.1 Notes    * 8 Bibiography    * 9 External Links 

The location allows me to talk about rivers and river flow, and transport connections. The architecture itself can be the point of the article- or may be bland, while type of water wheel or steam engine can be significant. Here you have several buildings that you have to cover and a sussubsection on each is the logical way. TMs were notorious for change of use, from jennies->Mules->rings-> out of cotton->dereliction->redevelopment->negative equity. Here it seems to have gone from a working mill to a tourist attraction, I think there is some mileage in discussing that - and maybe giving some stats on cost to the state and visitor figures (if you have them), Notable events- fires- murders- filming a bodice ripper. In your case, I think the reference to an available video should go here and not in the lead/lede.

Just a few thoughts, none negative happy researching --ClemRutter (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - a couple of things I never thought of there, and some good structural suggestions. Smallbones (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a quick look. All measurements need converting - ftin > m.cm, miles > km, acres > ha. A description of the machinery would enhance the article. There are a few unreferenced statements which should be provided with references - e.g. the fact that the mill stopped working commercially in 1941. I think we could get a DYK out of this one. Mjroots (talk) 07:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the video, I suggest you make use of the {{external media}} template, which allows you to provide a direct link plus whatever additional commentary you see fit. -- EdJogg (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen the external media template before - still playing a bit with the placement, but I'm pretty satisfied with the general outcome. Conversions - I'll get there soon. What would "a description of the machinery" entail - sounds technically over my head. There's something about the size of the 2 sets of stones - is that interesting/important? Somebody else has nominated it for DYK - I wish I could think of a better hook! Thanks to all. Smallbones (talk) 04:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through the article, the lack of description of the mill's insides or operating procedures is noticeable. If you are not mechanically minded then your description is more likely to be accessible by other non-mechanically minded readers! (Suitable pointers might include number/size of stones, other operated equipment, production capacity etc. Sorry, haven't tried watching the video yet.)

EdJogg (talk) 11:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[More...] The video would appear to be in RealPlayer format, not Quicktime.

There is more information about the mill operation here (includes general tech description plus usage) and here, and the second restoration (in which the mill interior was completely dismantled and rebuilt) is described here. Liberally raiding these pages should allow you to expand the mill section three- or four-fold!

EdJogg (talk) 14:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...may be found here: Template talk:Did you know#Newlin Mill Complex

My gut feeling is that a hook concerning the mill would be preferable, as it is the centre-piece of the complex; however, the initial hook is OK as it does have the necessary "how about that?" quality. (Pity there isn't a picture of the station in the article to go with it.) In the article's present state, I cannot see a more obvious, mill-related, hook. -- EdJogg (talk) 14:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just noticed that the DYK nomination was successful...

...and it's there right now! -- EdJogg (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been wrestling with problem of how to transfer data from Ashmore and Williams and Farnie into the various lists, with the minimum number of keystrokes. If you look at List of mills in Salford and List of mills in Manchester you will see what I have done. Previous lists such as List of mills owned by the Lancashire Cotton Corporation Limited were pretty but mixed up formatting and data- so were a nightmare to generate or edit. Further if a mill is ever progressed from the list into an article of its own everything has to be re-keyed into the infobox. So:

• I have written three templates.{{TMbegin}},{{TMend}} and {{TMtr}} (TM table row) that will generate a formatted list. The first two top and tail the list and if edited will change things like column width and colour- then {{TMtr}} is used for entering the data on each mill. The parameters are so written that they can be cut and pasted into {{Infobox Mill building}} and will then generate a basic infobox with no further work. Data has been separated from format.
• In reality I use gedit (texteditor) to enter the mill data as found in a book

• Actons Mill@SD584 051

When I have the complete list, I then use OStoWiki to convert SD584 051 to: SD584 051 53°32′28″N 2°37′44″W / 53.541°N 2.629°W / 53.541; -2.629 giving

• Actons Mill@SD584 051 53°32′28″N 2°37′44″W / 53.541°N 2.629°W / 53.541; -2.629

I use gedits global research and replace to @ with |Wigan| in this case, * with {{TMtr|, and }} with }}|<ref name="WF198">| }}.

:{{TMtr|Actons Mill|Wigan|SD584 051 {{Coord|53.541|-2.629|display=inline|format=dms}}|<ref name="WF198">| }}

I save and paste the list onto the wiki page and hope.

Name	Owner	Location	Built	Demolished	Served (Years)
Actons Mill		Wigan,  SD584 051 53°32′28″N 2°37′44″W / 53.541°N 2.629°W / 53.541; -2.629[1]

The first reference must be changed <ref name="WF198">A harvard citation</ref> Any other data and images can now be added. The crib line is:

<!--{{TMtr|Mill|Location|Coords|Refs| Notes|Image|Architect| Built|Decomm|Demolished }} -->

This way all the lists will appear uniform, and the mindless and error prone copy typing task is tamed. As you will see in the template documentation, the screen output varies if there is an image or notes added.

I mention this for two reasons.

1. Could some one watch my lists as it is a bit lonely--
2. Are all the watermill, windmill lists uniform in appearance, as I can sort out similar templates if needed.

I will paste a similar comment on the WP:GM page --ClemRutter (talk) 21:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the windmill lists are now of a uniform appearance. A standard table is adequate for these 100 or so lists. Mjroots (talk) 07:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - why is the OS grid ref not linked via {{oscoor}}? Mjroots (talk) 07:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response Historical accident- but I can look to adding it as a named parameter. With the exception of Ashmore, and Williams and Farnie most sources don't give grid coords, and the location is discovered by hunting and pecking round google maps with the source map or text balanced by your cup of coffee. With TMtr there is no reason why you couldn't copy a {{oscoor}} in instead. But in typing a long list you need to use a global find and replace to do all the hard work. My simple text editor would require me to type in the gridref twice, to generate the input data. in the format.{{oscoor|SD889971|SD889971}} This will need to go in the macro and use regex or something. As I don't use it, I hadn't thought about it. More serious, the template {{GeoGroupTemplate}} doesn't appear to extract the data it needs from {{oscoor}} so you cannot see your locations on a map. --ClemRutter (talk) 09:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Parameter added to both TMtr and Infobox Mill building.--ClemRutter (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an interesting debate going on at talk:Cotton mill#Beverly Cotton Manufactory / Animal Powered production --ClemRutter (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may already be aware of them , but if not ..

Mills Archive Trust (UK) - http://www.milsarchivetrust.org ?

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly regard information from thsi as within WP:RS. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's http://www.millsarchivetrust.org. - Dank (push to talk) 18:33, 3 January 2010 (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) 03:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am having an extra strong cuppa tea to celebrate, that I have posted the fifty third article to the series {{Lancashire Cotton Corporation}}. The first batch is thus finished. Thus we now as substantial block of illustrated articles on cotton mills filling a major content hole in wiki. As anyone who has ever ce one of my posting- they will be familiar with my signature spelling mistakes- random ´bbb´ s and other errors of someone with a reading age of twelve and falling. Can I encourage everyone to join in and do some bare-knuckle editing- tagging and generally extending, ammending, checking and fixing. There is a limit to my local knowledge- so that is an area that folks who have never stepped foot in a mill could tackle. I am not university registered so I can't access some of the potentially useful online archives. I have aimed for completeness, so some of the article are thin on specific information- generic info has been copied from well sourced Wiki articles but some of the text is over linked. All the articles need to be tagged and assessed, and links verified.

So whats on my personal todo list

• Another cuppa
• Tidying up the code of the Infobox mill building template (Having used it 60 times I have a few ideas..
• Go through the lot and write articles on all the redlinks, especially those in {{Lancashire Cotton}}
• Await the geograph upload to commons and add other images to some article, comparing and contrasting the mill today with the fair use images of 1951
• Complete the contents of the Lists of Mills in...
• Take on other major mills, Eckersleys, Horrockses, Shiloh etc

I would certainly like the group help in pointing out areas for expansion. A West Yorkshire member might like to attempt to cover the Worsted industry. Then there is industrial flour milling- can we start to look at mills in India, Milan, Lille, Barcelona. But principally some constructive comment on each the 53 articles would be useful.--ClemRutter (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be really helpful, if someone could go through {{Lancashire Cotton Corporation}} and assess each of the articles- as I am suffering from lack of feedback. I suspect that most of them will be C/B grade, mid importance. Thanks.--ClemRutter (talk) 11:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A wealth of high-quality engravings on early modern mills and mill technology, both water and windmills, can be found at Category:Theatrum Machinarum Novum, kindly provided by the Deutsche Fotothek. This is excellent material for illustrating the early (modern) history of mills, but also to demonstrate the mechanical workings of pre-industrial mills. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hadronic Matter An overview

An example of a book cover, taken from Book:Hadronic Matter

As detailed in last week's Signpost, WikiProject Wikipedia books is undertaking a cleanup all Wikipedia books. Particularly, the {{saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of the books. Title, subtitle, cover-image, and cover-color can all be specified, and an HTML preview of the cover will be generated and shown on the book's page (an example of such a cover is found on the right). Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class Mills articles should have covers.

If you need help with the {{saved book}} template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Wikipedia:Books, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.

This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 22:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot ^{(owner • talk)} 22:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I need help editing a draft of the Mill City Museum article. Also please consider contributing to the discussion on the Washburn A Mill article Talk:Washburn A Mill, Washburn A Mill constitutes part, but not all of the Mill City Museum, so I need to know if it would be better to place the article under Mill City Museum or place a redirect on the Washburn A Mill article. It could use some good pictures as well. Thank you. Wkaardal (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a POV but- your rewrite is certainly strong enough to stand as an article, as was suggested in Talk:Washburn A Mill.I come from a UK cotton background and so know nothing about industrial flour milling neither article explains current milling, or history of developments, You can afford to include a lot of generic- think of the needs of the intelligent reader.I have looked at the Minneapolis article and it doesn't explain the the wheat belt or the milling industry, the geography the demographics of this industry. All this is rich pickings for inclusion in both articles. Both articles are regionally specific- ..convert|boxcar|kg.., how many kilos are there in a boxcar?

Splitting this into The building- and its place in economic history, and the Current function: the museum you will find that there is overlap, specifically if you want to document the subject of the museum displays. Looking at the Category:Museums in Manchester you will see most museum articles have a fairly simple format, but Imperial War Museum North has GA status and does give a few better pointers.

Trencherfield Mill shows the format I used to write 55 cotton mill articles. You will see the subheadings I used- some blank showing work still to be done. Trencherfield Mill Steam Engine- needs to be moved it is out of place. There is a Location section, which is mainly cut and pasted from the Wigan lede section. The history section is divided into two:- generic (similar in 55 articles) and specific.

I think you should

1. build up the material
2. Go into both articles and establish a structure on both pages
3. Shuffle the material into your new structure
4. Fill in the gaps- ask if both give a full picture to a inquisitive 15 year old in Wigan
5. Copyedit (delete a lot of stuff from both) both articles
6. Stand back and watch the fur fly!

The articles are very important- but generally you will find that others will look on but leave you to do all the work! I have a talk page if you want to use it--ClemRutter (talk) 09:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see no objection to this article being moved from your sandbox into article space. There are many worse articles about. Personally I am not a fan of lists of performances by venue, as they are ephemeral events. I would like to see more on the contents of the museum, but details of milling machinery can probably be detter dealt with by linking to the general article Gristmill. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I notice that the template for this Wikiproject (Template:WikiProject Mills) identifies the topic as [[Mills]] (pointing to the disambiguation page Mills). I believe it should point to [[Mill]]s, i.e. to the page Mill. --Orlady (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It probably should, but I haven't a clue as to how to fix it! Mjroots (talk) 07:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done have also added documentation. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a little information here Arthur Powell one time owner? Others with more time may wish to research further and update the information on the Aricle pageStranger on the shore (talk) 09:40, 1 August 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 Mills 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 23:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few suggestions for additional articles. If any member of this WP think others are worthy for consideration for inclusion please add them. Mjroots (talk) 04:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I ve made comments on lack of any post 1850 textile mills- a strange omission. --ClemRutter (talk) 08:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our submissions have been reviewed. The Thelnetham Windmill article has been added to the selection. Although it is disappointing that other suggestions have not been selected, I'm confident that our suggestions were properly evaluated and we should not be hard on those making the decision. They have a difficult and somewhat thankless job to do. Mjroots (talk) 10:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not understand how to nominate, but would suggest that we ought to be nominating a series of types of mill: fulling mill; paper mill; grist mill; cotton mill; stamp mill. All these were historically of great importance. It is probably beyond the scop of this project, but i would have thought that blast furnace; finery forge; rolling mill; and tinplate ought to be included. The inclusion of particular examples is probably less important. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Peter, you are too late for this time round. From the various discussions at the talk page, what is important to a particular WP may not be important to the general 0.8 release. Article traffic does seem to play a big part in which articles get selected. I'm fairly sure that GA and FA articles also stand a better chance of selection. Mjroots (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of wind turbines in Denmark covers six lists of wind turbines -

• Lists of wind turbines in Denmark
• List of wind turbines in Denmark (1978-1989)
• List of wind turbines in Denmark (1990-1999)
• List of wind turbines in Denmark (2000-2009)
• List of wind turbines in Denmark (2010-2019)
• List of offshore wind farms in Denmark

The above lists have been nominated for deletion with one discussion covering all six. Mjroots (talk) 06:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this offer for simplifying the use of template:infobox windmill. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is our assessment procedure? Have we any special criteria? All I know is I can't assess my own work and I have many substantial articles that need processing- there are the 53 or so in {{Lancashire Cotton Corporation}} and then many more in the Category:Textile mills sub cats. Help needed. There are 183 unassessed mills of all types in Category:Unassessed Mills articles. --ClemRutter (talk) 12:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the same position. Looks like we need an assessment drive. Mjroots (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mjroots (talk · contribs) here, Mrs Delyth Evans (talk · contribs) has moved a large number of mill articles. I've asked her to stop pending further discussion. It is the convention of this WP that articles are titled in the style (location) windmill, or (name of mill), location. In a number of cases, there were other mills with the various names used, although they don't have articles as of yet. I can see no good reason why these articles shouldn't be hosted at the full title. 86.23.41.233 (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I've stopped untill Mjroots comes online. Mrs Delyth Evans (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I have blocked Mrs Delyth Evans (talk · contribs) as a sock of indef blocked Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs). I'm about to start reverting the moves. nancy 16:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Nancy. Mjroots (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving the sock issue aside, you're always going to have this kind of problem whilst this project ignores general Wikipedia guidelines on naming articles. There are basic principles when it comes to article names, "over-precision should be avoided. Be precise, but only as precise as necessary" (WP:PRECISION) and "the choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists." (WP:Article titles). I was pointed here by Mjroots after moving Ringle Crouch Green Mill, Sandhurst to Ringle Crouch Green Mill. My logic was that Ringle Crouch Green Mill was not only unambiguous in itself, but that Ringle Crouch Green Mill, Sandhurst actually introduced ambiguity where none existed. The general reader would see "Sandhurst" and think of the more famous one in Berkshire rather than the rather minor village in Kent.
Obviously there will be cases where you need to disambiguate, there's many a "New Mill" or "Union Mill" that will need a geographical identifier. Even then, WP:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Disambiguation (and various national guidelines like WP:UKPLACE) encourages the use of as big a region as possible for the disambiguation - the "general reader" in Australia hasn't heard of little villages on the other side of the planet, but has heard of England and will have some idea of the ceremonial counties thereof. Obviously there may well be a conflict between the disambiguating location suggested by WP:Naming conventions (typically a state or county) and that commonly used by specialist journals (typically a village) and in such cases you'll just have to make a judgment call. You might also want to ask yourself the question whether what is known as "something Mill, location" in specialist references, in fact has the WP:COMMONNAME of "location Mill" - that may be more true of rural windmills than urban industry, but I can certainly think of examples where it's true, and article titles without commas/brackets are generally preferable. Obviously in such cases you'd set up redirects from the "specialist" version of the name.
The use of village names as disambiguation isn't ideal in any case, as windmills are often some way outside the village. As a specific example, I would note that Swingate Mill, Guston is called Guston Mill on the OS map, and is closer to Swingate than Guston so the article should arguably be called Guston Mill, Swingate! I can see why you've tried to impose a convention, but you should be aware that you're going against Wikipedia-wide guidelines - and in any case attempts at uniformity tend to break down in the face of messy reality. Certainly I'd be pretty relaxed about the likes of Tutelina Mill, Great Welnetham dropping its village identifier.
PS One other thing whilst I'm here, per WP:WikiProject Council/Guide#Overtagging_is_disruptive I wouldn't go overboard on tagging Talk pages with project banners. I'd suggest that the average village mill only needs a county/state project tag and {{WikiProject Mills}} - anything tagged with the latter can be considered a part of WPs Energy, Technology, Historic sites etc by descent, the Mills project being a daughter of those projects. It's fair enough to tag more widely if a site has such significance (eg Cromford Mill) that members of those projects who don't specialise in mills have something to contribute, but otherwise indiscriminate tagging can hinder more than it helps. Le Deluge (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, taking a couple of specific instances above. Swingate is a hamlet in the parish of Guston. The mill is at Swingate, thus it is named Swingate Mill. It may be referred to as Guston Mill on modern maps, but it was Swingate Mill whilst it was a working mill. Redirects can be created if there is no ambiguity. Wherever possible, mills should use names rather than locations. Cranbrook Windmill could refer to one of four mills that have stood in or around Cranbrook over the centuries. That is just one small example. Many towns in the south east have had a large number of windmills. Even the small village of Biddenden had three at one time! As for mills not being near the location they are named after, Hoath Mill, Kent, holds the record, being 4¼ miles from Hoath and nearer to Chislet. Possibly Tutelina Mill could be renamed, but then the naming convention becomes inconsistent. Mjroots (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get distracted by the specifics of Guston/Swingate so I'll take them to its talk page; the relevance here is that despite acknowledging its location in Swingate, you use the parish as the disambiguator. In comparison to the clear hierarchy of WP:UKPLACES the decision to use the parish rather than the place might be considered arbitrary, leading to... inconsistency?
In any case, consistency is only one of the six criteria used for deciding names. You should also remember that you are naming the article for a "general audience before those of specialists". That general audience spends most of its time reading articles that are not about mills, so it is more important to be consistent with the rest of Wikipedia (as expressed in the WP:TITLE policy), than it is to be "consistent" (debatably) just with mill articles. Even if there are multiple mills in a settlement, in most cases outside the big cities there will be one known to a general audience as "location mill", even if a specialist would call it "something mill, location" - if only because there's only one left standing. What matters is the name that a general reader in 2011 would use, not a specialist in 1851.
Taking a specific example, the 33 members of Category:Windmills in Kent have 13 names of the form "location Windmill" (and a 14th implied in Frindsbury, but assume I never moved RCGM). You could add 2 more by moving Black Mill, Whitstable to Borstal Hill Mill and Black Mill, Barham to Barham Downs Mill as per WP:NCDAB #1, using "another term or more complete name...that is equally clear and is unambiguous" rather than a dab. Of the remaining 17 articles with geographical disambiguators, 9 are like Tutelina Mill or RCGM in having redundant geographical dabs, and you could make that 11 Of the remaining 8 articles with geodabs, Windmill World uses the "location windill" format for 6 of them - the exceptions being Union Mill, Cranbrook and White Mill, Sandwich, although I note the existence of the "Cranbrook Windmill Association" as one pointer towards a WP:COMMONNAME. Mjroots, you obviously regard Windmill World as a sufficiently WP:RS that you include it in almost every article, so I'd regard that as one decent bit of evidence that the WP:COMMONNAME for these 8 mills is in fact "location windmill"). I think that argument is particularly strong in the case of New Mill, Willesborough and Lower Mill, Woodchurch where not only the English Heritage listing document but their own official websites use "location windmill". To argue that those two in particular should use anything other than "location windmill" appears to be mill-geekery flying in the face of all reason. Yes, "New Mill" and "Lower Mill" may be the names used by specialists, but we are writing for the general audience, who will expect to see those articles at "location windmill".
So if we put Frindsbury to one side, and rename Whitstable and Barham per WP:NCDAB and Willesborough and Woodchurch per WP:COMMONNAME, then our 32 mills in Kent have 17 "location (wind)mill", 9 would be "something Mill" if you removed redundant geodabs, 4 would be "location windmill" if you used what seems to be a WP:COMMONNAME per your favourite WP:RS - and just 2 articles would be left in the form "something mill, location". I see little reason here to start ignoring Wikipedia policies like WP:TITLE, in the face of arguments which look suspiciously like "I just don't like it". Le Deluge (talk) 11:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is getting terrible learned and is flinging WP:policies around like there is no tomorrow- is there a policy similar to the one on overlinking stating the number of acceptable WP:References in one paragraph. Still, you are all welcome to come round to my place for a coffee- unless you are serious about >So if we put Frindsbury to one side,!

There are several practical objections to sticking to one rigid system. Some mills take the name of the Street where they are built (That is a Kentish word for Hamlet of Village), some after the family that own them, some after the miller- then are disambiguated by one of the other attributes which leads situation where you need the mill to be called Bill Street Great Mill, but in other circumstance Kimmins Mill, Bill Street or even Kimmins Mill (Bill Street) would be the correct term (except in these made up examples this would cause chaos due to the number of mills that Kimmins owned here- and I am sure that they were all called Kimmins New Mill when they were built). I watch the article on Sundials- and we have just entered the vandalism season- a lot of kids are accessing the article as it must be a popular KS2 KS3 topic- that is our readership. And they will be coming to the article directly because 'Miss said...' and in a way, that defines the common name in 2011... so is entirely unpredictable with out local knowledge. The best we can do is cringe and not make the situation any worse- like putting a Whitstable Mill into Borstal, the good citizens of that end of Rochester have other issues to contend with! I would suggest that divining the correct name for a mill is either witchcraft or WP:OR. Just come round for a coffee.. --ClemRutter (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Borstal Hill Mill, Whitstable (there are other Borstal Hills), could refer to one of two windmills. Maybe you'd prefer Borstal Hill Mill (east side), Whitstable. "Whitstable Windmill" could refer to any of four mils. With regard to Kent, mills are named per Watermills and Windmills, by William Coles Finch. Woodchurch windmill could refer to any of two windmills on four sites. Killick's Mill, Meopham is at that title to disambiguate it from Killick's Mill, Strood. This is why I created articles with deliberate titles, such as Draper's Mill, Margate, to distinguish that mill from all the other Margate windmills. Mjroots (talk) 09:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Top importance article windmill has had a major overhaul last week but more work is needed to bring it to good article status. Maybe some people here would like to have a look at it? Amongst others I think mills in eastern and southern Europe (Mediterranean) and the far east could use a bit more coverage, most text is about typical Dutch en UK windmills. Also there is more to be told about the early European windmills as post mills didn't just pop into being. Inline citations would be nice. I thought it a bit silly to be working on an article about some obscure drainage mill in some Frisian backwater while the most important article is in a bad state, so I gave it a try, but I lack good English sources. Reboelje (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you had been working on the article. Suggest that the best course of action is to raise specific problems at Talk:Windmill. You say you lack good English sources, but there is no rule that sources on en-Wiki have to be in English. Good Dutch sources are perfectly acceptable as long as they meet WP:RS. Mjroots (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have invited comment from the WP:Greater Mancheter group, on my talk page on the criteria needed to assess textile mills. There is obviously a block here, we have 67 to do and no-one is brave enough. To get round this I will do a few if someone can work out some guidelines. It is not not good practice to assess your own articles if you have to make up the scheme yourself. You can find most of them within :

Could anyone reading this have a look at a couple at random and pen some thoughts on my talk page. Cheers. --ClemRutter (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most individual mills will be mid-importance for this WP, with a few coming in at high importance. The writer of an article is probably going to be better able to judge if an individual mill should be rated as high-importance. I agree that one should not assess one's own creations for class, but importance is such a big issue. Be prepared to justify a high importance rating on an individual mill if called upon to do so though. Mjroots (talk) 11:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would a water powered Brassmill come under this project? I hope so as I've added the banner to Saltford Brass Mill, but if I'm wrong please remove it. Any help with the article would be appreciated.— Rod ^talk 15:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's powered by a waterwheel, so it qualifies. Mjroots (talk) 09:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently been doing some expansion on Claverton Pumping Station and wondered if someone would take a look and see if it now meets B class - any suggestions for what else is needed to get it to GA quality would also be appreciated.— Rod ^talk 16:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is Faversham explosives industry within the project scope; tagged as such at present. Hugo999 (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because the gunpowder mills at Faversham were powered by waterwheels. All such poweder mills under this WP. Mjroots (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This category contains at the moment 30 entries, 28 of which are hollow post mills. Shouldn't it be better to rename this category to "Hollow post mills in the Netherlands" and create a new category for the "ordinary" post mills? Mvdleeuw (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, hollow post mills are sufficiently different from post mills to deserve their own category. Maybe you should also create paltrok mills in the Netherlands and tower mills in the Netherlands while you're at it? (though I personally don't use categories much on wikipedia) Reboelje (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't rename the category. There are plenty of normal post mills still to be written about. Hollow post mills should be a sub-cat of post mills. As for Paltrok mills, techincally, they are tower mills with all the machinery in the "cap" so to speak, but I'd create that as a separate category without the "in the Netherlands" disambiguator as there aren't that many worldwide. Mjroots (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I leave this category alone, create a subcategory hollow post mills, and move those mills to the subcategory? I disagree about the paltrok mills BTW, they are really a type of post mill. Mvdleeuw (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not all paltroks are equal, see my recent expansion to post mill#Paltrok mill, both types stem from post mills though in different ways. I understand your reasoning for them also having tower mill features. Dutch wipmolens have diverted quite a bit from their ancestral post mill while French Moulin Cavier may have more in common with tower mills than post mills. Smock mills could also be said to be a subcat of tower mills. Trying to categorise mills is bound to result in difficulties and endless discussion so any categorisation is fine by me. Reboelje (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that technically, smock mills are tower mills with a wooden tower, but I would argue against subcategorisation thereof.

Categories should be Tower mills, Smock mills, Post mills (subcats Hollow post mills and Composite mills [if ever an article gets written on one]). Paltrok mills should be a separate category not a subcat of either tower or post mills. Mjroots (talk) 07:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I always (well, since about 1977/78) thought that it was the other way around: tower mills are smock mills with a stone smock. But I do agree that they should be in different cats. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the subcategory Hollow post mills in the Netherlands. Mvdleeuw (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The past two years or so I have made a number of short videos of windmills in my area. I have been wondering for a while now if it is worthwhile to add these videos to the corresponding articles in some way (for example either a youtube link or by converting to ogg theora format). An example would be to add http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN-fxTdenDM to De Olifant, Birdaard. What are your thoughts? Reboelje (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[