User talk:Douglal

Welcome Douglal!

You may also find Your First Article helpful. S0091 (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buxton Pavilion Gardens, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Bkissin (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by AngusWOOF were:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines for academics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

This reads like a resume profile and needs to be reformatted. Please indicate in comments in the AFC section how he specifically meets WP:NACADEMIC

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Chris Colton and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Chris Colton, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Douglal! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Scheduled monuments in Greater Manchester into Scheduled monuments in Derbyshire. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 11:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa, Thank you, I have put an attribution in an Edit Summary Douglal (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Content you have added appears to have been copied from historicengland.org.uk/, which is not released under a compatible license. Other websites were copied too. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, a lot of content had to be removed from Scheduled monuments in Lancashire, Scheduled monuments in Derbyshire, and Scheduled monuments in Nottinghamshire. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa, Thank you for highlighting this for me. I will make sure that I rework it carefully in my own words Douglal (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Douglal. The content I removed is still visible in the page history, so you will be able to determine what-all came out and replace it with original prose. Adding citations would be a good idea as well. :)— Diannaa (talk) 16:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good read, hope to see more articles like that, cheers. Govvy (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Govvy, Thank you for positive review. My great grandfather was one of the survivors! Douglal (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He was lucky to survive, of the few ancestors of mine I know of that took part in WW1 never came back. Govvy (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for addding your photo to Bleaklow. I wonder if you would consider adding the year of the photo to the caption, as it adds useful information. I live not too far away, but have never visited it - I must do so. As a 'Derbyshire lad' it would be great if you would add your name to WP:Derbyshire. It's not a very active WikiProject, but the more people willing to get involved, the better. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick Moyes, I've added the year to the photo and I figured out how to join the WP:Derbyshire gang. Thanks, Douglal (talk) 09:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for joining up. You won't get many alerts from your watchlist, I can assure you. Though you might find the 'Hot Articles' list of some interest, showing which pages are currently being most edited (whether positively or negatively), plus the 'Ideas for new articles' section.

Finally, I was starting to mull over the idea of trying to organise a Derby/Notts-based meetup/social chat sometime later this year or perhaps next, though such things obviously couldn't run now, anyway. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)    [reply]

Great editing on St Cadoc's and a wonderful picture! For Cadw citations, you'd be better off using the Cadw template, <ref>{{National Historic Assets of Wales|num=1955|desc=Church of St Cadoc|grade=I|access-date=20 March 2020}}</ref>. I've done the first one for you. Happy editing! KJP1 (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on! Cadw listings are generally considered better than British Listed Buildings Online, for Welsh buildings, Historic England for English. BLBO is a great source, but Cadw is the official record. KJP1 (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. If you wanted to get your dad's article on here, I think we could do so. He certainly sounds notable. There's a big conflict of interest issue however, which we'd need to navigate. Let me know if you want to try. KJP1 (talk) 22:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks KJP1. I have been waiting patiently for my resubmitted article about my dad to be reviewed, after responding to all the good feedback points from the first submission and trying to be completely open and objective. So it would be great if you could help ensure it gets attention and a fair assessment on its own merits. Cheers, Douglal (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello KJP1. I'm wondering whether you've had chance yet to get a review kick-started for my resumbitted Chris Colton article. Any help you can offer would be much appreciated. Many thanks, Douglal (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dougall - sorry if I wasn’t clear. I can’t help with the process of getting the AfC reviewed as I’m no longer involved in that process. What I can do is make suggestions on the content that will hopefully get it a more favourable hearing when it gets re-reviewed. That I will do. Two immediate things - the notability of academics is highly contested. I appreciate CC sits on the borders of academe and practice, as do quite a lot of senior medics, I suppose, but it would be worth thinking about how academic notability could be more fully addressed. Secondly, the COI. This is rightly taken seriously, and although I don’t think you are writing a promotional article, I suspect it will elicit some comment. You need to think about how to address this. KJP1 (talk) 18:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Thanks KJP1. I will have a good think about what else I may be able to do along the lines you suggest. Hopefully after 10 weeks in the queue, the resubmitted article will get some attention soon. Cheers, Douglal (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note to say thanks for your work on Peak District articles. You've created several articles that I've been meaning to do for ages. Dave.Dunford (talk) 08:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Etzedek24 was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Personally, I think that the subject is notable (given talk page breakdown) but the sourcing is just not there yet. (Clearly missing birthday, among other unaddressed CNs)

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Chris Colton and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Chris Colton, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 20:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Etzedek24. Thank you for the feedback from your review. I have added multiple citations from reliable sources where they were marked as being needed. I also removed 3 statements without suitable citations. I have added his date of birth too. As it took 3 months to be reviewed after resubmitting last time, I would be really grateful if you would have a look at how well I have addressed your concerns and highlight for me anything remaining that needs attention. I wouldn't want to be disappointed in many weeks time for something that I could deal with right now. Appreciate your time and expertise on this. Douglal (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Douglal: I think that the problems have been addressed. I resubmitted it and approved it. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 22:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Etzedek24: Many thanks for your speedy assistance Douglal (talk) 06:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Douglal! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Fosse Way that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia — it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. and other articles. I avoid using it entirely. Doug Weller talk 11:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Thanks other Doug. That's handy to know. I thought is was just for any small changes. I will only use it in future as you indicate. Cheers Douglal (talk) 12:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Douglal

Thank you for creating Nottinghamshire Domesday Book tenants-in-chief.

User:Cwmhiraeth, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

An interesting, well-referenced list.

Thank you @Cwmhiraeth:. Cheers, Douglal (talk) 07:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Douglal,

Thank you for creating Peak & Northern Footpaths Society.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Articles that are not linked from any other Wikipedia pages are relatively unlikely to ever be read. It also hints at a lack of notability.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Lithopsian}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Lithopsian (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Lithopsian: I am surprised and disappointed that you are questioning the legitimacy of a new article about a charitable institution which has been operating for 125 years. This seems to have been prompted by a conflict with the disambiguation of the PNFS acronym. I would appreciate you using your experience to help to resolve that challenge. I will endeavour to ensure that there are sufficient links to reflect the worthiness of this genuine new article. Douglal (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't question the legitimacy of the article. I tagged it as being an orphan. Wikipedia articles are generally wikilinked from other articles. This is one of the useful features of Wikipedia and enables readers to find out about new subjects. Article titles which are mentioned in Wikipedia but are not linked, should be linked. Subjects which are not mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia should make you think twice: is the subject notable or not? If it is, then you should find it easy to add content in other articles that can be linked. Remember that what is notable to you is not necessarily notable to Wikipedia. Redirects and dab pages don't really count as wikilinks, only real content. I did notice one or two mentions of PNFS in references, although none in actual page content. That might be a place to start. Lithopsian (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Douglal

Thank you for creating Lost buildings of Buxton.

User:Girth Summit, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Interesting list :)

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Girth Summit}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

GirthSummit _(blether) 16:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Girth Summit. It seemed a shame that people might forget about these unless I catalogued them. Cheers, Douglal (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was on holiday just outside Buxton last week, just got back yesterday, so when I saw your list in the queu for reviewing I was tempted. When I was there I was surprised by the blue plaque on the Old Hall Hotel saying that Mary Queen of Scots had stayed there - the building in its current form doesn't look old enough - I'd been meaning to look that up, so your list reminded me to go digging. Great work, more please! GirthSummit _(blether) 19:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, have you come across the 'Did You Know' system? It's a great way to get new content recognised, and promoted on the main page. Take a look at WP:DYK - having just had a quick skin through some of your previous articles, I think that many of them could have been nominated and accepted. The other good thing is that more people will review the articles and give you tips on improvements. You can only nominate an article within 7 days of creating it though, so maybe something to think about for next time? If you want any tips on putting a nomination together drop me a note, I'd be happy to help. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 20:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Girth Summit. Glad you had an good visit to Buxton. My article Seven Wonders of the Peak has some interesting background on Mary Queen of Scots visiting the town. I think that my new article Gibbet Moor could be a good submission for 'Did You Know', with its hook being the last place in England where a convict was gibbeted alive! I'm a bit daunted by how to go about doing it though, so I'd apreciate your advice and help. Thanks, --Douglal (talk) 06:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's long enough, new enough, and I'm sure that a hook like that would be sufficiently interesting. So, the steps for nominating it are as follows:

• Go to Template_talk:Did_you_know#Instructions_for_nominators, read the instructions, then type your article title into the box (without square brackets), and click on the 'Create nomination' button.
• Fill in the blanks in the nomination template. Put the article name, show the status as 'new article', type in your hook (including a wikilink to your article, which should be in bold font), and show the source for the hook - it's an offline source, but it looks reliable and the reviewer will assume good faith and trust you that it supports the assertion.
• Once you've done a few of them, you're expected to review others as a form of quid pro quo, but you don't need to do that for your first five nominations so you can ignore the 'reviewed' section.
• Save the template, and then you need to put a link to it at the current nominations list, under the date when the article was created.

Let me know when you've done it and I'll check to see it's filled in correctly. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 10:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Girth Summit ... Done it! That was rather fiddly. Not sure I'd wrestle with it all again. I'd be grateful if you'd check that I've not mucked it up. Cheers, --Douglal (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look and reviewed the hook. Definitely not mucked up in any way, but I've left a comment - basically, I'd suggest linking to gibbet in the hook, since there will be people who don't know what that means. Don't make that part bold - only the link to your article should be bolded - just copy your original hook into the 'Alt 1' part, and insert a normal wikilink to gibbet, then I'll make it as good to go. It will probably take a couple of weeks before it gets promoted and put on the main page - you'll be notified when that happens.

It is a bit of a fiddly process at first until you get used to it; it's up to you, naturally, but I always get a kick out of seeing my work appear on the main page. Some people like to collect DYK credits, and keep a tally of them - I've done fifteen, but there are people who have done hundreds - anyway, see how you feel about it, it's totally up to you of course. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again User:Girth Summit. Good thinking! I've done just as you suggested. It would be fun if it made front page news! Ta, Douglal (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great - I've approved, hope it doesn't take too long to get promoted. Keep an eye on the page over the next couple of weeks - you might see some reviewers making some edits to it before it hits the main page, it's a useful way to pick up tips about writing better articles, I've learned a lot that way. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 14:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Gibbet Moor at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 08:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Gibbet Moor at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 10:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Just noticed that your latest edit at Combs Reservoir references <ref name="userweb.port.ac.uk"/>, but there's no such reference defined. Dave.Dunford (talk) 08:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dave.Dunford. That's strange! I've fixed it now. Cheers, Douglal (talk) 11:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. Dave.Dunford (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Douglal -- Lovely to see you around creating and improving articles about the Peak District. My other half used to live near Buxton (we're now in sunny Scotland), so I've walked around many of the areas you are covering. I've added a few links to the Cheshire Portal, which I (for my sins) still intermittently maintain. I hope you don't mind! Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 05:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Espresso Addict. I lived and worked in Cheshire for 27 years but moved to beautiful Buxton 4 years ago. Writing Wikipedia articles has been an excellent lockdown hobby! I see you've got a fine portfolio of articles yourself with lots of good stuff about Cheshire, hiking trails and medical science ... all of which I'm keenly interested in. Delighted that you've hooked some of my articles up to the Cheshire Portal. Here's another that you may want to cover Peter Gaddum. Cheers, Douglal (talk) 08:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I used to be quite prolific back in Ye Olde Days when the standards were much lower than they are now and there was a lot of low-hanging fruit. I try to get back to actually writing articles now and again, not helped by the nearest library now needing a ferry... We lived in Cheshire for nearly 20 years, before moving up here five years ago to find former Cestrians round every corner.

I've added a couple of See alsos to Gaddum, on the assumption his business was based in Macclesfield: Silk industry of Cheshire & List of textile mills in Cheshire; see what you think. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 01:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce links in actual articles to user pages or sandboxes, as you did at Scheduled monuments in Lancashire. Since these pages have not been accepted as articles, user pages, sandboxes and drafts are not suitable for linking in articles. and such links are contrary to the Manual of Style. These links have been deleted, please do not re-add any such links, thank you - Arjayay (talk) 11:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Douglal,

Thank you for creating Scheduled monuments in Derby.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Nice article

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Joseywales1961}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

JW 1961 Talk 13:15, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Limestone Way has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Douglal

Thank you for creating List of dinosaur finds in the United Kingdom.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @North8000: Thank you. Douglal (talk) 06:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. This stands out from the bulk of list articles in at least two ways. Particularly useful/interesting and also very informative in a compact succinct way one each of the items. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Mount Famine, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Onel5969 ^{TT me}

I understand that your decision is well meant to make sure that Wikipedia articles meet the overall notability criteria. However a hill is often quite unremarkable but is important as a major feature of the country's landscape. I am concerned that your interpretation of the notability criteria would remove many of the hundreds of articles in this category: Category:Mountains and hills of England by county

I am convinced that it would be better to mark my well-researched article as a stub and allow contributors to continue to build up shared knowledge in Wikipedia articles about the hills of the UK.

I hope that you can see that my request is reasonable and consistent with a huge number of similar articles. Please reconsider your decision and publish my article.

Thank you Douglal (talk) 12:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Nick Moyes and User:Dave.Dunford, please would you support my case for this article: Mount Famine. I feel that it is a useful addition to Wikiproject Derbyshire. Thanks, Douglal (talk) 12:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm prepared to offer my (qualified) support – where is the best place to do it? I don't think there's a vast amount more that can be said about Mount Famine (it is, at the end of the day, a fairly minor hill), so I'm not sure that Onel5969's concerns can ever be resolved by expanding the article; but on the other hand I'm not convinced by their contention that as it stands there is not enough content for a full article (compare, for example, Brown Knoll, which is considerably shorter and less well referenced). A thought: might Mount Famine and South Head be better dealt with as subsections of Kinder Scout? But on the other hand, where does that leave Brown Knoll? Dave.Dunford (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dave.Dunford Thanks Dave. Not sure where is best for you to bolster the case for keeping the article. Perhaps just replying to Onel5969 on my talk page making your points above. Appreciate your expert backing. Cheers, 2A02:C7F:BCAF:D400:F75:80CB:7354:300A (talk) 14:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

... that was me replying on my mobile phone Douglal (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. While there is a case to be made that WP should include all natural features, the current standard is WP:GEOLAND. This has changed over the years. When I first joined WP, virtually any natural feature, with any type of sourcing would have made it through an AfD. Now, more in-depth sourcing from independent references is required. Dave.Dunford is correct, there are a lot of articles from years ago, which if they were floated now, would not pass WP:GNG. His example is one of those. I think that merging it to Kinder Scout is a good suggestion. I think that's a better target than Rosguill's choice of Peak District, although that would do as well, although it's a bit long, and merging it there might be clumpy. It could have its own subsection under landmarks. As for Brown Knoll, that should probably also go there as well. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Onel5969 for clarifying the latest standard, which explains the inconsistency between existing articles and new approvals. I can see that my Mount Famine article is borderline but it certainly has more content "beyond statistics and coordinates". It incudes facts about historic land use, a prehistoric monument, current land stewardship, a national trail, annual leisure actvitity and designation by CPRE as an Ethel. Therefore I'd appreciate it if you'd lean on the side of approval with it being a matter of interpretation and judgement. I think that there's a case for Brown Knoll to be part of the Kinder Scout article (as it is an outlying top on the Kinder plateau) but it would get very unwieldy if all the hills surrounding the Kinder plateau were incorporated into it too. A good discussion and hopefully Mount Famine will just make the cut! Douglal (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the section on "Named natural features" at WP:GEOLAND (which I'd not seen before) my take is that the guideline tends towards acceptance ("Named natural features are often notable...") rather than rejection. Mount Famine clearly exceeds the notability of the hypothetical landform given as an example of a non-notable feature ("a river island with no information available except name and location"), and the article as written already has way more than that level of detail (as listed by Douglal above). That said, I wouldn't be averse to recasting the material (and similar accounts of South Head, Brown Knoll, and any other spurs and sub-summits of the Kinder Scout massif, such as Grindslow Knoll, Fairbrook Naze, Kinder Low, Ringing Roger, etc., that might eventually warrant mention) as subsections of the Kinder Scout article, with redirects for the individual hills. I don't think that would be unwieldy. Dave.Dunford (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969, @Dave.Dunford: My take on this is that I fall firmly on the side of it meeting WP:GEOLAND. TBH it has more mentions than many shorter articles on alpine summits over 4000m! It's a clear an obvious and prominent geographic feature, named on Ordnance Survey maps), higher than nearby Chinley Churn to its SW, and with a recently-recognised prehistoric site on it. It meets bullet point 4 of GEOLAND in my view. At a quick glance, I'm unsure if it's appropriate to include it within Kinder Scout, and suggest starting it off as its own page. For anyone actually knowing the Peak District, it would not be appropriate to merge it to that article -there are far, far too many noteworthy summits to merit each one being merged into such an article, though maybe as a category. Clue's in the name. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes. @Dave.Dunford Many thanks for your insights and support Douglal (talk) 08:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969 @Rosguill please will you approve the article for Mount Famine and remove the notability warning templates from South Head (Peak District) and Chinley Churn, as @Nick Moyes, @Dave.Dunford and I are all convinced that they meet the WP:GEOLAND standard's "named natural features" criteria as discussed above i.e. clearly exceeding the notability of the hypothetical landform given as an example of a non-notable feature ("a river island with no information available except name and location") ... with multiple additional referenced details. Otherwise, for consitency, hundreds of less informative and less well-referenced existing articles about hills and mountains worldwide should be removed, which would be a massive shame and a contraction of the knowledge base on Wikipedia. I really hope that you find this reasonable and apply your judgement and experience to encourage authors to contribute new articles with appropriate although limited content. I have faithfully contributed well over a hundred high quality articles in the last 3 years and I always try very hard to meet the relevant guidelines. Thank you, Douglal (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to dispute the case if others are confident about notability, but I will note that the text at GEOLAND says such subjects are often notable, not that they are presumed to be notable. I think that arguing on the basis of the single given example in the criterion is essentially wikilawyering on the basis of a very minor aspect of the guideline and don't find it to be a particularly persuasive argument. Your diligence is nevertheless appreciated, and I'm happy to follow others' lead regarding the suitability or lack thereof of merging to related articles. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill Thank you for being flexible to allow these useful hill articles to sit alongside the many existing others of similar merit. Douglal (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Famine, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jacob's Ladder, Derbyshire is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob's Ladder, Derbyshire until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

JMWt (talk) 11:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]