User talk:Mucky Duck
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Welcome
Hello Mucky Duck, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Editing tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! You (Talk) 21:40, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Surrey-geo-stub
Hi - We at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting note you've recently created a new stub category. Did you realise that stub categories should normally be cleared by WP:WSS before creation? It clearly states this fact at the top of most pages relating to stubs, and at the top of most stub categories (Category: England geography stubs, for one). That way they can be vetted to check that there are a viable number of stubs (set at around 100) and that the category does not cross the existing stub hierarchy before the stub is created.
If you can provide any information on why the stub was created, please add a note to entry for the stub at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries giving the reason for it. In addition, if there is any Wikiproject associated with the stub add that information. Thanks.
In the case of this stub, England's counties are in the process of being split off in a specific order, working from the largest counties (in terms of stub numbers) down. There are several reasons for this - ease of splitting for the editors, for one - usefulness to editors for another. Surrey was on the list to be split off, so this template and category will not be deleted, but it is unfortunate that a county with only 74 stubs has been split off before several with over 100 stubs which are in process of preparation for splitting, and will slightly delay the splitting of those other counties because of it. Grutness...wha? 07:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- Hi again - No, this one wasn't too bad - it was going to eventually get split off, just not immediately. Sorry to come on like the "stub police". It's more of a problem when someone makes a category that completely crosses the stub category structure, or is only going to have four or five stubs that there are real problems. Or when they make a category and find two stubs for it, then leave someone else to sort the rest out (which is what usually happens). As it is, you moved most of the stubs over yourself, which meant there wasn't nearly the extra work there might have been (I moved the last 20 or so over myself). Because of that it won't really delay the next split, so there's no problem. In future though, it's be good if you went "by the book"! :) Grutness...wha? 13:56, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Icon on London stub
Hi Mucky Duck - I see what you mean. In theory, Image:GLCArms.jpg would probably be better, but I'm a bit hesitant to change it for three reasons: Firstly it's a copyrighted image (which is fine for one article, but using it on a stub template means it'll be on lots of articles). Second, the city arms are far more widely known. Finally, WikiProject London put the icon there, and I figured they knew what they were doing! I suppose you could always change it and see whether someone else changes it back - that's usually a fairly good indication of whether it's an acceptable change. I must admit that I should be annoyed at it personally, having been born in Greater London, but not in the city. Grutness...wha? 11:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Battle of the River Plate
MD, I reverted the changed b/c the page is currently at RdP. I didn't preempt anything. Actually, the link now is pointing to a redirect page instead of pointing to the river itself. Wiki naming violations are not happening if the only thing I'm doing is pointing the link to the article. A discussion is taking place in its proper page regarding that. I am not planning to revert though, but I will change back to RdP (at least the link, if not the text) if and only if the final vote goes that way. I hope you don't take it as a revert war, which is the last thing I want to start. Sebastian Kessel Talk 19:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, of course. That would - will by the look of it ;-) - be perfectly reasonable. Mucky Duck 19:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Britain in Ireland
How did you come to the conclusion that Britain extends into Ireland when the British state itself invented a new state called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland/Northern Ireland specifically to acknowledge this difference? El Gringo 16:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've moved this to talk:United Kingdom for further discussion. Mucky Duck 09:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- FYI Mucky Duck - this debate is flaring up again, thanks to your friend above. Gsd2000 01:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
