User talk:Dormskirk

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

User talk:Dormskirk/Archive 1 (2007–2011)
User talk:Dormskirk/Archive 2 (2011–2013)
User talk:Dormskirk/Archive 3 (2013–2015)
User talk:Dormskirk/Archive 4 (2015–2016)
User talk:Dormskirk/Archive 5 (2016–2018)
User talk:Dormskirk/Archive 6 (2018–2019)
User talk:Dormskirk/Archive 7 (2019–2020)
User talk:Dormskirk/Archive 8 (2020–2021)
User talk:Dormskirk/Archive 9 (2021–2022)
User talk:Dormskirk/Archive 10 (2022–2024)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7, Nick-D and Pickersgill-Cunliffe discuss six (count 'em, six!) works comprising eight volumes Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on a lecture by the Australian official historian

Can you do me a favour (because I'm unravelling a unknown length of string here) and let me know your thoughts on whether or not we are documenting the actual name of the hospital or an artifact of the original source for the names Dr. Jeremy Taylor publication "Hospital And Asylum Architecture 1840-1914". When I reviewed the current source for the name it became unclear if this was formally named "Third Lancashire County Asylum", and instead it was just the "third Lancashire County Asylum" per the history page on the same site quote:The third Lancashire County Lunatic Asylum, Rainhill opened 1st January 1851 simultaneously with the second asylum, Prestwich and our own disambig page Lancashire County Lunatic Asylum. Just in glancing around I can see:

• another "Third Lancashire County" asylum listed with even County Asylums mentioning the Preston site
• meanwhile the source for Prestwich Hospital "Second Lancashire County Lunatic Asylum" makes no mention of the numbering convention and other sources specifically just call it the Lancashire County Lunatic Asylum as it had a different name to the "First" the Lancaster Moor Hospital then known as Lancashire County Pauper Lunatic Asylum
• oddly we claim the original name of Lancaster Moor is "the First Lancashire County Asylum" which seems very unlikely (and isn't supported by any source)

I found Simon Cornwells site (careful, the site is listed as unsecured but I can't find anything obvious wrong) lists Rainhill as alternatively "Third Lancaster County Asylum" as does this similar list which both base their work off the original "Hospital And Asylum Architecture 1840-1914" which has raised my circular sourcing hackles a bit i.e. Taylor writes a list differentiating the different hospitals, Cornwell adds to list in table, Table becomes the source of countyasylums.co.uk and so on, but the numbering convention may not have been in original source, or may have been included only as a differentiator rather than a formal name, meanwhile wikipedia seems to just be adding "First", "Second" etc to sites where it isn't included at all because of some perceived convention. Koncorde (talk) 08:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - This is extremely complicated and it took me several months of work to unravel it myself. All counties in England used this numbering convention and in some counties they commissioned some ten asylums all numbered in sequence. It is best summarised by this article which sets out the numbering sequence. The numbering sequence was a government initiative rather than anything wikipedia invented although some hospitals may have preferred not to use the rather de-humanising sequence. Dormskirk (talk) 09:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a non-Taylor source for the numbering convention? Anything contemporaneous, such as from the commission? I haven't found a copy of Taylors publication, and when I glanced earlier the only sources I could find referenced Taylors book at some level. If there's specific commission details then would expect them to be somewhere, but outside a random architecture website I have ran dry (though I have hardly been exhaustive yet). Koncorde (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you by the way. Not to sound like an ungrateful sod. Koncorde (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I seem to remember that Taylor was the main source I used, although I did consider The Asylums List as well. Dormskirk (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at a diverse range of works Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the "center of gravity"

Hello
I notice you deleted some stuff I put on this page; I’ve opened a discussion there, if you wish to comment. Regards, Swanny18 (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Task_Force_(Toronto_Police_Service)#Equipment

How do you cite two authors I can't figure out. Can you fix my link?

TShape12 (talk) 08:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sorted it for you. Dormskirk (talk) 08:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here you've put 1989 inside the sfn, but 1982 in the citation template. They have to match for the sfn to work. DuncanHill (talk) 13:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now corrected. Apologies and thanks for pointing this out. Dormskirk (talk) 13:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing it so quickly. DuncanHill (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your sterling work creating and improving articles on town halls! I noticed you listed Cullompton Town Hall as being in a vernacular style - is that based on a reference? I'd have described it as Edwardian Free Style, though surprisingly I don't think there's an article on that movement. Warofdreams talk 22:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I used vernacular style only because I could not think of anything better, but on reflection I think Edwardian Free Style is more appropriate. Many thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at the Tokyo war crimes trials

Good morning Dormskirk, curious if you will be turning your hand to a new company page for the above that IPO'd on Monday 10 June 2024? I believe they will be joining the FTSE 250 at the next index rebalance. Thank you for your service. Johnlexcameron (talk) 08:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - It is not included in the next rebalance, which is due on 24 June 2024 (see here). However, I will certainly be taking a look if it does move up to the FTSE 250 at some later date. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 204 (Tyneside Scottish) Battery Royal Artillery 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/204 (Tyneside Scottish) Battery Royal Artillery 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.

PercyPigUK (talk) 12:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now resolved. Dormskirk (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dormskirk, I recently made a request on the BP Talk page to add information about the acquisition of Bunge Bioenergia in June. I was wondering if you had any thoughts on adding the information or how to make the request better. Reaching out because you had reviewed some of my requests in the past. Cheers Vishal BP (talk) 09:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - It looks fine. There will be a delay because there are over 150 requests waiting to be processed. Dormskirk (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dormskirk, Today I edited our regimental wiki page. I have noticed that there is very little information with regard to our deployments since 2006, sporting achievements and locations. I have seen that you have reverted the changes that I made due to references (or lack). Could you explain more please? So that we can amend it correctly and get the correct information updated onto our page. 185.13.50.184 (talk) 11:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - No problem. Essentially all information needs to be verifiable: see WP:V. This is done through in line citations from reliable independent published sources. Please read WP:CITE and WP:RS to find out how this is done. Try adding one fact at a time, with an in line citation, so that it can be checked by other editors, before moving on. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for getting back to me.

The biggest issue that we have is that non of our Operations are in the public domain or public records - hence why we are trying to correct this now. Outside of the London Gazette and ORK stored in the National Archive or MOD main building, I can't prove this stuff to you.

I don't know why this has happened, but this is why I have taken on the job to change this and update our public facing records. Have you got business contact details in which I could communicate with you on, as I would rather not go through an editorial back and fourth, but if we could work together to fix this, it would be beneficial to all... least not that your editorial skills will be far better than mine! 185.13.50.218 (talk) 12:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but we do not provide contact details on wikipedia. Just one word of caution: you should not use wikipedia to publish information that is not already in the public domain. Quite apart from wikipedia guidelines on verification, please bear in mind data protection and other implications. As previously recommended, try adding one fact at a time, with an in line citation, so that it can be checked by other editors, before moving on. Also any further discussions should take place on the article talk page so other editors can comment. Dormskirk (talk) 12:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews