Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

UK WikiMeet 2005

OK I want to get the ball rolling thinking about having a UK wikimeet sometime in 2005, before the international one, wherever it's going to be. What are people's feelings on this, and what ideas do people have as to venue, timing, agenda etc? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 04:08, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, if in London, or indeed elsewhere, it would be more satisfactory to think about a meal in the early evening, rather than 9.30 pm, for those who need to get a train home. Charles Matthews 15:49, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think it ought to be significantly earlier than Wikimania so people don't feel they are choosing between the two. Perhaps February? My preferred venues would be Essex or north or east London. Further afield would be fine if it's earlier in the day. Angela. 07:06, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. I'll start a sub page about it. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 22:14, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've started the discussion off at this page if you want to go and have a look. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 19:04, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

On this topic, I'd just like to remind all UK Wikipedians that the Wikimania organising committee will sit on Sunday 31st October to decide a venue, so do express support for Dublin in the interim. You know you want to... --Kwekubo 02:08, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please note: I have re-organised the London meetup page, and such discussion would be easiest moved there, I think.
James F. (talk) 20:28, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

An easy one for all UK Wikipedians

I noticed Children in Need was much-linked-to but not written, so I had a bit of mad rush stab at writing something about it. But everyone has seen Children in Need... so it should be dead easy to write, right? Pcb21| Pete 15:24, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps suggest for COTW? --Joe D 15:35, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll support it if it goes there. I'll even nominate it if you haven't done already. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 15:46, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To create

Why the River Dwyryd in particular? There is scope for an entire Rivers of the United Kingdom project, or even four projects, to fill in all those on the to-do list. --Keith Edkins 08:50, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I just selected one of the many at rendom. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 16:05, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There are a great many articles related to the Waterways in the United Kingdom. User:Renata wrote most of them, but she stopped contributing some time ago. Mintguy (T) 21:40, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Talking of rivers, I expanded a stub on my local River Leam. But, being a newbie, I am not sure how to categorise it nor where it should fit in the great scheme of things. Also, perhaps a more experienced Wikipedian could advise me whether I've filled in enough detail to remove the stub tag? I intend to add to the River Cherwell stub and start articles on a couple of other local rivers which are redlinks ATM so any advice would be useful to me. Ta. Andy F 02:23, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Why the River Dwyryd in particular? There is scope for an entire Rivers of the United Kingdom project" There is such a page, and it lists most of the UK's rivers. The Waterways in the United Kingdom article is more of a link page which points to articles on rivers, canals, lakes etc. of the UK. Grunners 19:22, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Erosion of International English Usage

It would, I think, be advantageous to list pages on which attempts are being made to erode the usage of correct English, so that others can get involved and put an end to such behaviour. Here is my first example: aluminum. It is proposed on Talk:Aluminium to use "aluminum" on the grounds of the "Google Test." -- Emsworth 13:35, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ho hum. Once we graduate to joined-up handwriting, there'll be so many squiggles in aluminium that you wouldn't even notice the odd "i" missing. ;-) But seriously, considering the number of people who contribute here without even having English as first language at all, the compromises we have to make between British and American English do seem pretty minor. I'm all for correcting text which departs from what is pretty much universally agreed to be correct English, but I think you're talking about "correct English" in a more debatable context here. ,,,Trainspotter,,, 23:15, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Aluminium and Aluminum are both well within the range of English usage. IUPAC has standardized on Aluminium, and people in some countries still use Aluminum. As it's a very common material and has entered the public domain in both guises, it really isn't worth bothering about--just make sure you stick to a consistent spelling (one or the other) in articles except where discussing the two spellings. --Minority Report 12:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

<Sigh>, Yoghurt is under attack again for not using the American spelling. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:08, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)

New set of icons

For use on lists of places of intrest in England, e.g. county pages:

Code	Translation
{{EngPlacesKey}} (Template:EngPlacesKey)	Key Abbey/Priory/Cathedral Accessible open space Amusement/Theme Park Castle Country Park English Heritage Forestry Commission Heritage railway Historic House Places of Worship Museum (free/not free) National Trust Theatre Zoo
[[Image:NTE icon.png|National Trust]]
[[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|English Heritage]]
[[Image:FC icon.png|Forestry Commission]]
[[Image:UKAL icon.png|Open access land]]
[[Image:Museum icon.png|Museum (free)]] [[Image:Museum icon (red).png|Museum (not free)]]	/
[[Image:HR icon.png|Heritage Railway]]
[[Image:NTS icon.png|National Trust]]	National Trust
[[Image:CP icon.png|Country Park]]

Any comments or suggestions for improvements? --Joe D (t) 12:43, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I like these. It would be better if the images were titled, i.e. [[Image:NTE icon.png|National Trust]] => gives you something meaningful if you're not using images, and tells you what the image is when you hover over it. fabiform | talk 18:58, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do that in any future edits. I'm considering adding icons for national trails, castles, churches etc, but then we might have to start a customised key for each use (to avoid having a long list of icons which aren't actually used in the text). By the way, you can already see examples of this in action on Dorset, Bristol and Cornwall. Joe D (t) 19:11, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A useful one for my county (Isle of Wight) would be 'pleasure park' - i.e. not as good as an amusment park (such as Chessington or Alton Towers), but in a similar vein. --NeilTarrant 23:02, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, wouldn't it? Why don't we use the standard brown tourist signs and definitions? That could be really helpful. Black on white is fine, but the icon style and definitions could be the same. I like the red museum one though - thats a useful distinction. Naturenet 14:45, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nice idea but why restrict it to England ? All of these icons would be useful for Scotland apart from English Heritage. -- Derek Ross | Talk 08:28, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)

I'm not restricting it to England, only the template as it includes English Heritage and the National Trust for England logo, which I think is different to NT for Scotland(?). I think the template may become a bit useless if we start adding more icons, so we have to just make our own key each time we use them anyway. --Joe D (t) 12:20, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'd be very careful about the Access Land one - these are not always easy to identify and can be highly controversial. There are legal ramifications to this, and unless we specify boundaries calling something 'open access' might be problematic. Might be better to keep this particular one on the sidelines until we see how it settles down. Naturenet 08:53, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How about adding a footnote to the key, linking to another page perhaps, with a simple disclaimer along the lines of "Land marked is assumed to be accesible either legally or permited by the landowner, but this is not evidence that there is a legal right to access this land. Please consult local bylaws or the landowner for further information." ? Joe D (t) 12:20, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not a bad compromise, but it's still dangerous language. I don't think we need go there at all. Perhaps we could say 'Public open space' or some other less loaded term. Naturenet 14:45, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've gone with "accessible open space" because I think that's a more accurate description. Joe D (t) 15:41, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thats much better! I've no qualms with that. Naturenet 16:26, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

When applying it to Kennet and Avon Canal on Somerset I thought maybe "Accessible land" may be better, but all possible wordings I've come up with so far have been a bit over simplified. Any objections to using "Accessible land" until we can come up with something better? Joe D (t) 20:18, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Seems OK to me, maybe even a little better. Shorter, anyway! Naturenet 10:44, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Query - A matter of Style

If a tourist site offers a Country Park and Historic House run by the National Trust, should one list it under the most 'notable' category, or all three? --NeilTarrant 18:05, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Surely either all three: , or, if HH icon excludes NT-run houses, two: , no? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:52, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A similar dilemma would often present itself with AL/NT icons. Common (although not universal) practice on roadsigns is to have only one sign per attraction, and so it is a matter of judgement which is the most useful. In this case I'd suggest that the NT/EH signs are the most useful if you know that they are involved, especially if there's a fee to pay, as members of those bodies might want to go there. Otherwise the element of the attraction which is most well-known would be the best one to use; or all of them if you feel keen. But use of multiple icons could start to look overfussy and add little information, in my view. Naturenet 19:28, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A Vision of Britain

You have to laugh don't you. This morning on BBC Breakfast a chap from this new website that was launched at noon today was asked if they were worried about the site having the same problems that the 1901 census site had. "No they'd learnt from that experience" he said. So take a look at http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk. Mintguy (T)

Ah... Well it looks good anyway. So what's the website about then? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 22:11, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You are supposed to be able to look at maps and get lots of other information for almost everywhere in Britain for the last 200 years apparently. Mintguy (T)

Sounds useful, depending on the copyright status, which of course I can't check because they've turned off everything... -- DrBob 22:27, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps I shoudn't say this on a public forum (but I will anyway!) but I just discovered that you can get past the front page by going to http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/index.jsp Mintguy (T) 22:30, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for this link Mintguy... great site. I posted it to a historical authors' email group I belong to and I got a lot of responses. You've made lots of authors very happy. :) fabiform | talk 01:43, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

English Counties

I've been looking through the pages for the different English counties. While the wikiprojects have done well with the infobox, many of the articles, IMO are seriously lacking. I have done up Dorset with the sections and subpages that I think these articles need and have co-opted the old page Wikipedia:Counties of England for further discussion of this. --Joe D (t) 17:32, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you can take a look at Buckinghamshire and let me know what you think of it - whether it's lacking or good, I'll have a guideline of what you mean. I wrote most of that page and (personally) consider it to be quite good. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 21:43, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Poll on Wikipedia:Manual of Style

Current Wikipedia policy is that every time the abbreviation for the United States is used, it should always be written U.S. rather than US. This is regardless of whether the article puts stops in other abbreviations or not. There is a proposal to remove this policy. If you wish to vote on it, please go to Wikipedia:Manual of Style. The poll ends at 8pm GMT on 8 November. jguk 23:27, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Music articles

Recently List of Number 1 singles from the 2000s (UK) (and related) articles were split from the main number ones list. That's an improvement, but I've now created the 2004 in music (UK) and 2003 in music (UK) (not quite finished) articles. Comments (or help for the other years!) would be great. Basically, is it worth the time and effort? violet/riga (t) 22:15, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Another London meetup?

There will be a Meetup on the evening of Friday 3 December. Please see Wikipedia:Meetup/London for details.

List of United Kingdom-related topics

Sigh. User:Wikiuser has determined that England, Scotland and Wales should not eb listed as subjects under the heading "Nations and states of the British Isles" in the article List of United Kingdom-related topics. I've RVd his edits twice, whichs seems to be my limit for the night. Over to anyone else who happens to care. You will be called a racist by WikiUser, hence the sigh. --Tagishsimon (talk)

A new take on the let's use US English debate

As far as I can tell on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, some are now suggesting that since three-quarters of English speakers are American, we should use American terms more often. Oh well......we fight on. jguk 21:58, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Where on earth did the figure that three quarters of the world's English speakers are American come from? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 11:22, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's absolute nonsense. See my comments on that talk page. Even if the majority of people with English as a first language use US English (which is not a foregone conclusion) - taking those using it as a second language, the majority of English users do not use US English. zoney ♣ talk 11:57, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. It was added to American English, and I rewrote it slightly to beg-the-question somewhat less. If we assume that 90(?) per cent of Americans (USians) speak English as their first language, then there are ~ 260 million native speakers of English who use the American brogue. There are 10 million Canadians, but some of these (1 million?) speak French as their native tongue; 8 million Australians; 4 million each Irish and New Zealandic; and, of course, 60 million British. Given these figures, there would be ~ 85 million native speakers of English who don't speak it in AE, which is almost exactly on third the size of those who do.

James F. (talk) 12:54, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Err, you're a bit out of date with your population figures -- from our own articles, population of Canada is over 32 million, Australia over 20 million, and don't forget all the first and second language speakers in the Caribbean, Africa, India, Malaysia... -- Arwel 13:34, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that we change all articles to Australian English. Here are some global changes to institute:

1. Change all instances of the word "woman" to "sheila"
2. Change all instances of the word "man" to either "larrikin" or "pommy"
3. Change all personal names to "Bruce"

If you can think of others along these lines, please feel free to add them. ;-) func(talk) 14:39, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Milton Keynes

Hey there,

Just randomly came across this article today. It was a bit of a mess, so I reorganised it with new sections and headings (Old, New).

It seems like quite an odd/interesting subject, judging by the references to it in popular culture (currently almost a quarter of the actual content in our Wikipedia article!). Perhaps some UK wikipedians can expand it with some more interesting details? At the moment it just sounds like a bunch of roads with some big mad shopping centre and sports facilities.

zoney ♣ talk 23:33, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Milton Keynes sounds that way because, to be honest, that's about all it is!  ;-)

Andy F 00:38, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Seconded - I live near Milton Keynes (and am going there this evening in fact for a dinner date with some friends). It has to be one of the most soulless, barren places I have been to in my opinion, so I'm probably not the best person to be writing an article about it. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 18:36, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

More village redlinks

I have just put up an article about the River Cherwell which mentions several villages that don't yet have pages. As a newbie, I don't know whether these will automatically appear in the UK 'to do' list or whether I should add them manually? Or should I write stubs for them? Advice (either here or on my Talk page) would be appreciated. Thanks. Andy F 13:31, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, you need to add those manually. A better way to do it though (so that the page doesn't get any more cluttered than it already is) is to list them in the [[List of places in...]] county article (if it isn't already created then create it) and then direct users to that page from the complete to do list. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 18:40, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ta Graham, I will try to find time to do it that way. Andy F 16:04, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Elections

Please let everyone know about the "election" currently running to elect The Arbitration Committee. These people decide what happens to a large extent on The Wikipedia so please go to [this page] and learn a bit more about the candidates. Also more information [here]. Is everybody going to vote?WikiUser 21:48, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why the emphasis on "election"? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 21:51, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Everyone who uses this U.K. part of The Wikipedia please spread the word and read the info linked to above. Voting closes on the 18th December, so please check out the candidates' history before voting, to avoid letting bad arbcoms into the 7 posts that are up for election. WikiUser 19:36, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

List of Europe-related topics

I've created a List of Europe-related topics (shortcut|Europe topics), as there ws no such article for Europe-wide articles. If anyone comes across such an article whilst editing, please add it to the List, and add the shortcut to the top of the article. Cheers. Grunners 20:16, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Christmas

I've just noticed that there's no article on Christmas dinner - ho ho ho IVoteTurkey 11:09, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Check the following for quality also: Turkey, Ham (no mention of Christmas), Stuffing, Plum pudding, mince pies, mulled wine (v. short). zoney ♣ talk 11:45, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The article on turkey (food) says that cranberry jelly is a traditional accompaniment in Britain - I thought that that was a relatively recent American import - but given the turkey itself is an American import I'm not sure whether the two arrived together. IVoteTurkey

Indeed. I grew up with turkey as a Xmas dinner, but only even became aware of cranberry sauce when American culture impinged in the early 80s. I'm far from convinced cranberry is a traditional UK thing (and turkey is only post-war - before that, Dickens notwithstanding, the 'traditional' tended to be goose). Icundell 13:20, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cranberries grow wild on the boggy moors of Britain. The British cranberry is tiny compared to the North American species but it is the original cranberry and, yes, it has been made into jellies, jams, pie fillings and sauces since "Time Immemorial". Hardly anybody picks wild cranberries nowadays because it is so easy to get cultivated ones from the supermarket but cranberry sauce is indeed a traditional accompaniment to fowl. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:27, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

The traditional accompaniament is bread sauce. On the history of English food, see the incomparable Dorothy Hartley's Food in England Apwoolrich 14:04, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's it! I knew it was something white and 'orrible that I hated (and also, of course Christmas is coming; the goose is getting fat etc). Methinks Turkey (food) might need some revision. Maybe it was written by Bernard Matthews Icundell 14:21, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So what's with Dickens then. Was A Christmas Carol written for an American audience? IVoteTurkey

Actually according to http://www.williamrubel.com/magicoffire/turkey.dickens.html- Mrs Beeton wrote the following in 1868 - "A Christmas dinner, with the middle-class of this empire, would scarcely be a Christmas dinner without its turkey" IVoteTurkey 14:42, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No. It was just a luxury in Britain until Bernard et al started intensively farming them after the War Icundell 14:46, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yep. In 1868 the middle class was tiny. Toffs had swan (or whatever was in vogue) the middle class has turkey, the (huge) working class had whatever it could afford. Icundell 14:55, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well - in Dicken's Christmas Carol even the Cratchets (sp) have a goose (i.e. before Scrooge's gift even) - and although I omitted it above, and it's perhaps not so common now - I think it would have been very very traditional, and obviously even the lower classes had some scrawny bit of a bird. zoney ♣ talk 15:57, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes. Goose was cheap. Icundell 16:45, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Toffs had swan (or whatever was in vogue)" - lol - I'm sorry. Nobody eats swans. Swans have been protected for centuries. The only person who was allowed to eat swans was the Monarch. But I now think nobody can eat them. Yes the middle class was considerabbly smaller in 1868, but when we are discussing fashions and vogues and we are generally talking about the well-to-do and not the hoi poloi. The so-called "traditional" English breakfast being a classic example. It appears that Turkeys have been eaten in Britain for centuries, vying with the goose as the traditional fare for Christmas. IVoteTurkey

Both the Vintners and the Dyers Companies have ownership rights to swans and the monarch claimed wild swans in open water - for the very reason that they were a delicacy required for banqueting. But we are talking about the last century when the landed aristocracy was still in its pomp. Icundell 16:45, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well - I believe that you are absolutely correct. I've found what appears to be a well-researched article about Christmas in the 1840s (A Christmas Carol was written in 1843 I believe ) here [1] - it says " The centre-piece of the main course was beef in the north of England and goose in the south. Turkey had been bred in England since the sixteenth century but had not yet become a widely popular dish, though it was a prize turkey that Scrooge sent to the Cratchits on Christmas Day, suggesting they were fairly easily available but expensive.". - and indeed after WWII turkeys entirely overtook geese as a traditional Christmas dish. I've also read elsewhere that Turkey supplanted Roast Swan on the Royal Christmas menu in 1851. IVoteTurkey

Thanks. I used you cite to rework Turkey (food) (plus Zoney's' note re Scrooge) Icundell 22:30, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

~Jolly good. No article on Bernard Matthews either. I seem to vaguely remember some whiff of a scandal regarding him, but I can recollect no more. IVoteTurkey

If you are still in a xmasy mood, you might want to inspect Christmas pudding. It is rather wonderful (and all the better for Zoney's removal of disgraceful British imperialism :-) )Icundell 11:59, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Early afternoon slowdown

Does anyone else get an early afternoon slowdown in WP performance? Usually around 2pm-ish and possibily corresponding to when the yanks roll out of the pit? Icundell 14:57, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

yep Grunners 15:26, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also noted. That's why I mostly edit at night after work. At the time I write this it is incredibly slow! [[User:Norm|Norman Rogers\^talk]] 15:49, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes. It's worse than any other time I edit (which can possibly range from 9AM GMT through to 2AM depending on my daily routine or occasional lack thereof). zoney ♣ talk 16:00, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes. The same thing happens on Ebay. I think these tickets for The Producers will be sold by the time this screen refreshes. IVoteTurkey

As indeed thery were. IVoteTurkey

OK, I'm a sucker

I'm most definitely a sucker, but I've taken on another WikiProject: Wikipedia:WikiProject computers. If anyone has any flair with computers or knows how to research computer topics, I welcome them there!!!! We're still formulating policy.

Anyone interested? Even if you're not, let your geeky friends know. They're more than welcome. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:43, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

British and Irish current events

FYI, I have started a new British and Irish current events page. Please feel free to add UK current events (including sports events). jguk 23:02, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Excellent idea and fine start. One small word of caution - be wary of words like 'insist' (the Dec 1 Blunkett story). There should be a compelling reason to use something other than 'said'. Also, if there is a way to lose the two uses of 'ongoing' in the box, I would be quite greateful (but that might just be me!). Icundell 01:04, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please be bold and make changes - I copied the format (and most of the stories) direct from Current events, so it's bound to need some tweaking. Probably didn't get rid of all the American news terminology like "ongoing". I'll be referring to "breaking" news soon:) . I hope we get a good mix of British and Irish news (including sports news) on there. On another point - perhaps we should rename this the British Wikipedians' notice board - it would be a shame to exclude the Manx, Channel Islanders, Gibraltarian, Cayman Islanders, Turks and Caicos Islanders, etc. etc. jguk 01:13, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So you say to cconfidently conceptualise amendments and enact them in an aggresive but non-confrontational way? Had it not been gone 1am I would have - and will once I can think of a better word (which involves getting xmas shopping out of my head first). Icundell 09:58, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

List of words having different meanings in British and American English

Help needed here. Is the cockney rhyming slang association "syrup" commonly understood enough to belong on this list, or should it be listed only on the rhyming slang list? Which other dialect words should appear on this list? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 18:17, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I never found this article! Fanstastic. And to answer your question, I think only in rhyming slang (maple syrup is maple syrup on both sides of the pond). Icundell 20:46, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There seems to be an endless argument going on about this (silly as it may seem to some) - so I propose that a vote on it be held here (where the Brits congregate) to sorti it out IVoteTurkey 11:01, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As a Brit who left for the States in 1997 - I never heard the term, and I spent a good deal of time in London. My feeling is that 'syrup' in its CRS meaning must have been used on TV at some point for comic effect, probably since 97, making more people aware of it, but that there are still a good proportion of the British population who have no idea what it means, and the number of people who would actually use the word with that meaning in conversation is vanishingly small. Other than as a deliberate 'funny cockney word', at least.

My gut feeling is that it's not actually in at all common usage and probably shouldn't be in that article, any more than many other CRS words which might be recognised by a proportion of the general population but would never be used by them. —Morven 16:50, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, it was certainly in use on television in the 1980s, in, say, Minder and EastEnders, and elsewhere earlier, but only in a Cockney context. It's certainly not (and never been) a common UK-wide usage, although people would probably know what you meant. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:15, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Which makes it a good candidate for the list, does it not? -- Necrothesp 01:48, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I do and I'm not a Londoner. Besides I think some regional variations in language should appear on the page, particularly where they are starting to make a widespread appearance in popular culture. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 10:50, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The inclusion of "syrup" is wrong for a very simple reason. Syrup only means wig in specific circumstances. If you saw an obviously bald man in a ginger wig you might whisper to your friends "pssst.. check out the syrup". i.e. it is used for 'comedic effect' and almost exclusively in reference to mens' wigs. You would never hear a woman saying "shall I wear a my blond or red syrup tonight" - to suggest that you would (by putting it on this list) is just silly. Jooler

Dates rant

In school I was always taught that the correct way of writing a date was like this:

Wednesday, 22nd December 2004

and not like this:

Wednesday, December 22nd 2004

The former certainly seems to be a common British thing, the latter American. Imagine my horror then when someone "fixed" all the dates (their words, not mine) at British and Irish current events from the former format to the latter. Is this another example of Americanism protruding international culture, or am I just being a pillock? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 12:20, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes it is Americanism protruding international culture- tell them if they want to view the dates the other way round - set the Wikipedia preference setting, for it. Jooler 13:31, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I sugest reverting it. As long as you format the date as a link (i.e. two square brackets either side) then if you've specified British or American dates in your preferences MediaWiki will automatically reformat them for you. If you haven't specified a preference I think it displays them as per how they are in the source. For British articles British English should always be used, which I interpret as including date format, so the change to the current events would be wrong. Joe D (t) 13:34, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The format also only does yyyy-mm-dd not dd-mm-yyyy.--Jirate 14:25, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

I've checked the dates on that page and they all seem to be displaying according to prefs. You just need to set your prefs according to your nationality. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 14:38, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but the source for an page on British matters should use British English spelling, format, etc. - some readers are not registered and so don't have preferences. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:48, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the source looks like. I can type [[December 22]] or [[22 December]], it doesn't make a ha'porth of difference if you've set your prefs properly. In any case, quite a few British newspapers use the Month-day format without getting sniffy letters from Disgusted of Penge:

• The Guardian
• The Times
• The Sun
• Financial Times

For readers who aren't logged in it's probably best to make sure that all dates are presented the same way within a given page, but which way that is really doesn't matter. They're as likely to be reading it on one side of the Atlantic as the other.

--[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 16:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, policy is that US-style should be used in specifically US articles, British style in specifically non-US articles, and whichever is used first in any other articles. I think it does matter. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:22, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I didn't know there was any policy on the format of Wiki source code. As I indicate above, there is an air of fiction about the claim that some styles of date are specifically British. US newspapers tend to be consistent about date formats; all that I can find adopt Month-day. British newspapers, on the other hand, are not consistent in their date format, and they obviously don't get many complaints. In common with many other aspects of grammar and punctuation (use of the full stop after Mr, for instance) we British tend to adopt a more relaxed approach to date format. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:48, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The 22nd Dec style is correct. The fact that young British people on the bbc and in newspapers are using the American way of talking is just part of their ignorance and wish to force Americanisation on Britain. It grates with British users and there's no reason not to have a mix of British and American styles on the wikipedia. It's not just a matter of Americans damaging our culture, although they are, it can also be confusing to have the date the wrong way round as they do. When I'm trying to sort out something from a list on the internet and I'm confronted with the American date format I have trouble keeping track of what I'm trying to do. WikiUser 19:30, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The British way tends to be that there is no convention; the American way is that there is a right way and as wrong way. It's a result of the uniformity in their education system and can also be seen in the acceptance of reformed spelling in the US--again propagated by uniform education. In the UK we're more inclined to be influenced by mainland Europe, so ideosyncratic spellings such as "licence", "realise" and so on have leaked into our English from French. This has happened less in the USA because they're taught to be far more fastidious about spelling and punctuation and they have been further from the influence of French speakers for the past five centuries or so. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:57, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thankyou but the British way in writing has always been day first then month. That is the convention. December 27 on the news page looks odd to me. You're right that in talking British people sometimes say December the 13th. But when it comes to writing as I said you're thinking of the young "British" people's way that they've copied from the media and the British modern "educational" sytem. The Americanisation in other words that can even be seen happpening by the week. It's only a month or so ago that the morons on the bbc started saying two thousand four, i.e. American, instead of speaking English. WikiUser 17:01, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Where does the custodianship of this "British way in writing" reside? Certainly not in the literati:

Robert Louis Stevenson letter to Henry James: BONALLIE TOWERS, BRANKSOME PARK, BOURNEMOUTH, DECEMBER 8, 1884
Elizabeth Gaskell letter to Charles Dickens: Saturday, Jany 12th, 1850

I could find more but those two will do to illustrate just how difficult it would be to make any kind of case for a longstanding British "convention" of writing the date. You call the BBC "morons" for using a common pronunciation of 2004. What did you call the year ten years ago, nineteen-and-ninety-four? two-thousand-four and two-thousand-and-four are both equally informative and acceptable pronunciations of the year. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:40, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Leave it for now. But plan some guerilla action:) As soon as we're in January, make sure you go into Template:Current events box and make all the links in the DD-MM-YYYY format. Keep doing it until those changing it give up. Note that you'll also have to change all the links on the American current events page too, so that they have a fair chance of linking in too:) They may not like it, but it's a price worth paying for consistency, isn't it? ;) jguk 12:06, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

UK geo stubs

Now that there's loads of them, is there a way to make the listing of articles in the category browsable alphabetically, rather than just with the 'next 200' and previous '200 links'? Seems to me that templates like this ought to auto-generate an alphabetical TOC. Icundell 22:27, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, the feature whereby categories display only 200 pages at a time was only introduced a few days ago. You could try suggesting this idea to the coders who might add it to the next version of the software... Joe D (t) 00:53, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, where do I do that? I find this version less useful than a page that takes ages to load, since there is no idea of how many there are in a category,so no idea of how mant pages full of 200 records will follow.

Oh, and while I think about it, I noticed that rivers were forming a huge part of 'R' when we were moving them. I'd suggest that rivers need their own category. Icundell 11:38, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Retailer category

I'd just like to point out that Category:Retailers (non food) of the United Kingdom is a silly category. We don't have "People (not actors)" for example. Edward 00:01, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)

Has it been nominated at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion yet? I think it should be. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 01:00, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Could not agree more, but following a disagreement already with this rather abrasive editor I will probably be accused of spite (moi?) if I nominate it. Giano 14:57, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I see the user in question has User talk:Pcpcpc has now added: - "If you have come here to snipe (for example to reward me for spending ten hours sorting out an uncategorised section the site by telling me that one of the sub-category names I choose is stupid) please keep your thoughts to yourself." So perhaps one had better keep one's thoughts to oneself! Giano 15:08, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:EH icon.png

Image:EH icon.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)