User talk:Owain.davies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Owain.davies, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Lustleigh edits 2 Re: Ambulance edits 3 WP:NOT 4 It's 5 Ambulance 6 Lustleigh edits

[edit] Lustleigh edits

OK - you don't agree with some of my editing. However have you looked at Wikipedia:Manual of Style? In general articles of this type focus on the historic and then come up to date in that sequence which was the format I was adopting. Equally you may wish to check out WP:NOT - articles very rarely have such a focus on local current events. Wiki is an international encyclopedia - for example a band local to Lustleigh will be interesting within the area - however if I were a Lustleigh resident looking at a wider audience I'd prefer the page to look a little less informal and "folksy" and more like an encyclopedia. You may find it useful to look at Guide to layout, Guide to writing better articles and Avoid trivia sections in articles.

Whatever you feel about this I will at least place relevant Wiki links within the article in order to bring it in line with so many other well written and researched articles --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

OK & apologies if I was a little harsh too and particularly if my edits left the article not making sense. I doubt two Wiki editors will ever see eye to eye completely over an article. In my view the POV aspect could be reduced. I confess I do not see the village amenities as being encyclopedic or in line with most of the other village articles which I have looked at.

As to the bells (a signficant feature given their history and provenance) - why do you feel they should be further down the article? Certainly in time as the page develops they may well warrant their own page but for now maybe not.

As and when I get a chance I will try and get some more Wikilinks in but I assure you I will not radically alter the article without posting on the article talk page first - hope this is ok - regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Ambulance edits

Very impressive work, well written. --Badger151 02:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

And I heard some talk about that RDS thing, but never saw anything solid on it - i don't suppose you have a reference? --Badger151 04:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see ambulance as a featured article, eventually. Toward that, I wrote out most of the history section, and cut large portions of the USA section, turing them into their own page (Emergency Medical Services in the United States, which presently needs a lot of work, but one thing at a time). Next on my personal to do list are to add a bit to the "design and construction" section, and to add a section about the motorcycle/donkey-pulled/etc ambulances seen in lesser developed areas, but if you have the time, feel free to get started, if those topics intrest you. Other things I see that could use work are the US section, which needs to be repolished, and the section on France might be able to be spun off in its own article. The "costs" section is also lacking, but I really don't know much about that subject. And one of the difficulties, of course, if the length of the page; I haven't come across a solution for that, yet.

Incidentally, I didn't see your replies until just now - if you leave messages on my talk page, via the 'discussion' tab up top, the system will let me know that I have a message waiting. Best --Badger151 03:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I saw that you did work on the "Intermediate technology" section of the ambulance article (under Design and construction). I appriciate the nature of what you added, but in doing so you changed the purpose of that section, which was about ambulances designed and built under the principles of intermediate technology. By all means be bold, but at the same time, please be careful about what you remove. Many thanks, --Badger151 02:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NOT

I know WP isn't a social networking site but I thought it might be nice to say hi seeing as I haven't seen or heard of you in over ten years. If you like, come join the Portal:Kent and WP:KENT as we are just starting up. Take Care. KevinCarmody 19:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It's

I'll be picky - "It's" is short for "It is" as such the awb correction was good --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ambulance

Hi, Owen - I do agree that there has been a slow creep over the past several months in the style of English used on the Ambulance page, however, I think that if you reflect, and take a look at the page history, you will find that:

1. from the begining, the page has been written in US English. Armor appeared before armour, -ize has consistently appeared, but I have rarely found -ise, truck appears instead of lorry, &c.
2. If you take a look at the page as it existed at the time of your first edit:[1] you will see that, where there are differences between US and UK English, most of the page uses US conventions.
   • All of "History" was written in US English (I know because I wrote it, and I wrote it that way in keeping with the rest of the page).
   • "Design and construction" is in US English: note the use of the word gasoline, not petrol.
   • "Appearance and markings": note the word favor, not favour.
   • "Private ambulance companies": I don't see much that falls specifically into only one variant of the language, but I do see that perhaps half of the section is about US phenomena, and I see the mention of a Commercial driver's license, which according to the Wikipedia page is a US phenomenon (I gather that UK’s PCV license is somewhat equivalent, but the point remains that the US term is used).
   • "Military ambulances" has something of a split personality, using armor but armoured - if you look back through the history, however, you will see that the US spelling appeared in the article first.
   • What follows is the discussion of services in different countries - sections you quite appropriately removed and spun into their own pages. Looking at them nevertheless, I see that the US section (whose height takes up 2 and 1/2 screens on my monitor - almost twice as much as any other country’s) appears to be written in US English - I note the use of color rather than colour. France's section doesn't appear to use anything that isn't used by both variants of the language, though I admit that my knowledge of the intricacies of the differences has its limits. The section on the UK is written in UK English: I note the use of recognised rather than recognized. The section on Germany uses therefore, with the e at the end - I honestly don't remember which style this falls into, though I think it is US. Norway's section uses organizations, which I also take to be US spelling.
3. There appears to be some confusion regarding the type of English to be used on Wikipedia, so I cut and paste from Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ#General (you'll have to scroll down to section 3.10)

   • Should I use American English or British English? - People contribute to the English language Wikipedia in every possible variety and dialect of formal written English. The English language Wikipedia particularly welcomes contributions from editors whose first language is neither American English nor Commonwealth English. Still, it is generally good form to keep usage consistent within a given article. The official policy is to use British (AKA "Commonwealth") spelling when writing about British (or Commonwealth) topics, and American for topics relating to the United States. General topics can use any one of the variants, but should generally strive to be consistent within an article. See Wikipedia's Manual of Style for a more detailed explanation.

     (Emphasis is mine)
   • I also note:

     Disputes over style issues - In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to British spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would only be acceptable to change from American spelling to British spelling if the article concerned a British topic. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article uses colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles, although editors should ensure that articles are internally consistent. If it has been stable in a given style, do not change it without some style-independent reason. If in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

     which you may find at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Disputes over style issues The first major contribution was probably that made by User:Cdang in several edits between 19 August 2004 and 30 Septermber of the same year; Cdang added much of the section on French EMS, which as I have already said, is difficult to assign to any one type of English. The first moderately sized addition that chooses between UK and US English that I can find is User:Mathknight's addition of "Military ambulances" on 13 January 2005; Mathknight clearly and consistently uses armor, not armour.
4. Because of this, I have consistently used US English, as far as my understanding of it allows: I wrote the entire "History" section in US English, The work I did on "Design and construction" was written the same way, as was the work I did on “Appearance and markings,” (which you expanded on quite nicely, as I believe I commented at the time – as I look in more detail, though, I note that you overlooked the presence of colored in that section, not to mention the style of the bulk of the rest of the article, and used UK spellings in your additions. As this added a sizeable block to the article, this may be why you thought of the article as being largely UK English.)

If you look at the edits that I have done on the Ambulance article, I believe that you will find that, where I have changed between one style of English and another, I have done so only for consistancy, and generally only as I came across the discrepincies; I made the last series of edits upon first discovering that some sections had drifted, and later in determining that many of them had done so.

I also wish to point out that in your haste to attend to UK English, you undid User:GunnarRene's edit of 27 March, and my edit regarding civilian vehicles, which is necessary if the reference to Dean King's book is to be valid.

Finally, I must object to your statement that you wrote or rewrote 75% of the article. You have added about as much as I have, and I know that I haven’t written half of that article. I find your proposal otherwise to be highly insulting. Yours very sincerely, --Badger151 05:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lustleigh edits

This is what you wrote on my Talk Page:
Thanks for your clean up on Lustleigh article, but i think a couple of your cuts were a little harsh. I've put a couple of them back in, because i think their removal got rid of some useful information and background. Being absolutely succinct is not always desirable! Thanks.

In reply to those comments I’ll talk about just two paragraphs.
EXAMPLE 1
You changed this paragraph (containing my edits):
The graveyard contains the remains of Lustleigh residents, although the graveyard is now full. With the exception of those with family plots, new burials take place at the graveyard on Mill Lane.
back to this:
The church graveyard contains the remains of former Lustleigh residents, although the graveyard is now full, and with the exception of those with family plots, new burials take place out at the new cemetery on Mill Lane.

Comment 1. The paras are headed The Church so ‘’’church’’’ graveyard is redundant so I removed the word “church” as any good editor would.
Comment 2. I don’t object to “former” going back in.
Comment 3. The word “new” was there twice in the final phrase which is regarded as bad writing. So I stand by 2 out of 3 of my edits in that para.

EXAMPLE 2:
You changed this paragraph (containing my edits):
The line grew in popularity from 1860 to the 1930s and thereafter went in to decline. This led to diffculties with finances and, despite a significant summer tourist trade, usage was not sufficient to cover costs. This coincided with the rise of the private motor car.
back to this:
The line grew in popularity from 1860 to the 1930s and thereafter went in to decline. This led to financial difficulties (with no initial business plan having been undertaken) and despite a significant summer tourist trade (and featuring in many contemporary guide books to the region), the local usage through the year was not sufficient to cover rising costs. This also co-incided with the rise of the private motor car, leading to a decline in passenger number, and the branch railway consequently saw a decline in fares.

So now that para is wrecked by wordiness, rambling and bad sentence construction. I could go on and on about your other reversions but I haven’t the time. I hope you can realise that your writing skills need polishing by someone else (which is what I was doing). Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 20:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)