User talk:JonC
Un-necessary Dartmoor edits?
[edit]Hey just wondering why you deleted the entire works that I added to the Dartmoor posts; The wartime history, the events that happen over dartmoor, death valley etc. I can see that the death valley section may be cause for deletion, but as for the others: they needed cleaning & polishing yes, but they were NEW and relevant things. Acra 20:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if it looked as if I was picking on you! Just under pressure to edit the page, after it was labelled for 'cleanup'. I tried not to actually lose any new material, but to condense it, or move it to more appropriate places. The Death Valley section, for example, was moved to the Ten Tors pages. The military references were becoming a bit scattered and over-long, so I thought they ought to be condensed into a single section. If I did delete anything on wartime history, it was probably because it appeared unduly significant, with a thousand years covered in a few paragraphs! However, I'm not too 'precious' about this. Why not put it back and see what others think? Jon
No, it's ok... didn't know you'd moved the Death Valley part... Annoyingly, it seems that the article is still marked for cleanup, although I'd have said that you and other contributors had done a good job of cleaning... Acra 17:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, I think it's a pretty decent page overall - of a higher standard than other UK national park sites, and better than many similar sites that are NOT marked for clean-up. Seems a little random! Not entirely sure what more we can do at this stage. Jon
Err - Dartmoor
[edit]Hi Jon. Rather a new Wikipedian so apologies if this is not the way. This coupled with the fact that you obviously have some input in Dartmoor subject matter and that you are about the only Wikipedian I "know" has led me to write here. Unusually, according to friends, I'm not just diving in but trying to learn a bit first. However I do have some knowledge on aspects of Dartmoor and a few (serious) books on the moors so I may be able to add a little.
Geography/geology don't seem well treated and man's use of the moors over the years don't strike me as being given the weight they deserve compared with such issues as letterboxing. Equally a list of tors and rivers doesn't seem interesting tho I could easily add to them.
If you have the time and inclination pointers would be welcome. As a ps I'm not sure about the piccy of the English Electric Lighning - I have no recollection of this being on the moors. All the best & TIA Nigel 16:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Nigel - I agree with everything you say. Some areas of the Dartmoor pages seem to have developed at the expense of others.
- Geography/geology: deserves more. I included quite of lot of detail on the formation of tors, which appears in the 'tor' page (although now heavily edited)
- Man's use of moors: I created a separate 'Dartmoor tin-mining' page, because this threatened to become too long. Perhaps we need a good summary here?
- List of tors: I never liked this. The list could easily become endless. Also, there's a dispute over what is a tor, and what is a hill. Best to limit to 'well known tors'? ie: those with stories attached?
- Rivers: Seems OK to me. So long as we're not missing any (and must be careful not to start listing streams, or we fall into the same trap as 'tors')
- Electric Lightning pic: not keen either. Have never seen this in my travels, and is not typical. The moor really isn't littered with wreckage, is it.
In conclusion: some work is needed. If you make constructive changes, rather than mercilessly deleting what you don't like, people tend to accept it. So go for it! I will do my bit when (and if) I have time. Jon
- Hi Jon - many thanks for the support and encouragement, I do appreciate it.
- Man's use. I like the tinning page (it was one of the reasons I approached you). The industrial archaeology one is good too and I may well add to that - I have quite a good reference book on the subject.
- Tors list. I started thinking - great I can add to this and then realised just how boring it was! I looked at the page of "list of peaks in the Peak district" and thought that might be a model?
- Rivers. Perception is fascinating isn't it. You think they are fine - I think they are sparse. My reason would be that they are very thin on information about their courses and places of interest. The Erme valley has one of the longest stone rows in Europe on for example. Equally I added 2 streams because of what is or was on them. The Swimcombe has at its head Fox Tor mire and was at one stage going to be a reservoir, the O brook had one of the last working tin mines on it. Am I barking up the wrong tree here - your views really would be welcome.
Thanks and all the best Nigel 17:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. As far as as rivers are concerned - no problem. I'm just wary of creating big lists - that's why the best options might be 'others include' or 'best known...' so that it doesn't have to be comprehensive. I mean, there are probably more streams on Dartmoor than sheep.
My personal view is that a notable tin mine or stone row should eventually be a subject in its own right, rather than linked to a page about a stream, just because it happens to be next to it. The O Brook mines are a great example (Whiteworks? I forget). But this is just my view - would hate to trample on your knowledge and enthusiasm! Jon
Thanks again Jon - reflecting (unusual for me) I think I probably see it your way. It may just be easier to start some stuff in rivers that then gets edited to another page - still coming to terms with the concept of an evolving encyclopedia! Sideline - Whiteworks is Swincombe (+ Childe's tomb + Fox tor mire - Conan Doyle etc etc), O brook is Henrost among other.
All the best Nigel 13:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jon
Bit more experienced now and thinking about the main Dartmoor page and thought I would run this past you. I wonder if the page could be tidier if we created some categories - Dartmoor Rivers, Dartmoor Villages and then linked that to the Dartmoor page rather than the current list approach? Could leave the main tors, rivers etc on the Dartmoor page with a "see also" for the rest. It should make the page a little sharper
Obviously comments welcome and I will post similar on the talk page but I'm not sure if many watch that. All the best --Nigel (Talk) 12:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think that makes sense. However, do be sure that it fits within Wiki policy. There are guidelines on what pages should look like, and presumably on when to include 'breakaway' sections. I'm not the best person to ask. Have made changes in the past that made sense to me only for someone to tick me off because I didn't follow a Wiki rule that I was unaware of! Best to have a read through the guidelines. Not sure which bit. Maybe start here? Wikipedia:Guide to layout. And yes, try the Dartmoor discussion page. All those who are 'watching' Dartmoor will be notified of your addition.
Jon
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)