Talk:Malvern, Worcestershire/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive

Previous talk archived.--Kudpung (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, where? I can't find it (I have the sneaking suspicion I'm missing something obvious here) GyroMagician (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It is Talk:Malvern, Worcestershire/Archive 1 Keith D (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry Gyro - I must have forgotten to create the link. Keith, thanks for jumping in :) --Kudpung (talk) 00:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem - and thanks for finding Keith GyroMagician (talk) 06:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

DAB

Malvern DAB page: I have corrected a typo, added an entry, and alphabetised the list.--Kudpung (talk) 05:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

CONGRATULATIONS!

- and thanks to everyone who worked so hard over the past few days to get Malvern to GA. --Kudpung (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Expansion

I've removed the 'find' template. I hope nobody minds. The Malvern page is probably as complete as it ever will be. Any more additions might simply unbalance the focus. Of course, if the place gets promoted to city status, or gets razed in an earthquake, there may be grounds to expand the article by a line or two- but only through consensus!--Kudpung (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Notable people/peacock

Hello Jarry1250, welcome to the discussion. We could make a ridiculous Wikipedia arguement out of this, but things tend to run more effectively when we're civil, so cut the aggressive tone. As to your edits:

1. Schools: you may not like it, but of the notable people who came to Malvern for the schools (as teachers of pupils), they didn't come to the local comprehensives, they came for the notable public schools (with the exception of Jacqui Smith, but she grew up in Malvern). Certainly not any.
2. The Hills inspired many poets and novelists, and scientists carried out much of their research at what is now QinetiQ. The details are in Malvern in Literature or Research - how would you like to link to these, without giving a list of citations? Maybe link to those sections in the article? The research at Qinetiq (under the older names RSRE or RRE) was unquestionably ground breaking, as cited.
3. Malvern's impressive list of notable people. The list of significant people related to Malvern is long compared to the size of the town - I think that is worthy of comment. Can you find a way of doing this without using the words impressive list?
4. Malvern's notables - a little informal for an encyclopaedia, don't you think?

I look forward to your helpful discussion or edits. GyroMagician (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Me? Aggressive? I'm sorry if you got the wrong impression (my writing style does not condense easily into a 250 character edit summary). Working through your points, (1) I concede on, I was just try to avoid the repetition of "notable" (2) I would say a footnote linking to those articles might go a long way to helping, or, if you prefer, one direct citation for each. "Ground-breaking"? That perhaps is the term that most caught my eye - I just don't think it adds anything that normal "research" wouldn't. As cited? I'm afraid I'm unfamiliar with the article (and the town). Where might I verify that? (3) I just wouldn't, because I find the whole exercise far too self-referential. And that's nothing personal, I would do the same to any similar list. (4) No, I find it quite formal myself, though I'm sure usage varies considerably. I use it all the time in discussing people from areas closer to me. Checking the OED, it says "n. gen. ..." I have no idea what that stands for, but anyhow, I quite dislike my own rendering of the sentence, though I did feel it was an improvement. I hope that helps expand on what I said earlier. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 20:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Glad I got the wrong end of the stick there! Thanks for expanding. I've made a few changes - what do you think?

1. I've tried to reword - better?
2. Okay, citations added. For research, it needs to say more than they did some science - they racked up a number of world firsts.
3. I don't take it personally, I just think that for a town of <30k people, it's a long list.
4. I can't live with notables, I've reverted that.

Thanks for your help - this section does need some polish. GyroMagician (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(Indenting the last bit of your reply.) Fair enough. Equally, I can live with the present wording / referencing. Am now off to go write some more articles :) I'll dewatchlist the article, but my talk page is always open.- Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 17:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Some settlements are indeed totally uninspiring. There are plenty of people in the UK who have never heard of Malvern, indeed, there may be plenty of 30 k population towns that I never heard of either. However, Malvern is probably unique (and hence its indisputable notability) in that its history (and present) hinge on more than just a few key facts:

• The priory
• The Malvern chase
• Hydrotheraphy
• Education
• Its wartime role.
• Science & technology
• Urban infrastructure.
• ANOB

These facts combine to justify the claims in the article and everything in the article that needs referencing is referenced. The article has very recently become a GA, and there are probably some articles in the encyclopedia, and especially the Worcestershire project, that are in need of more urgent improvement and discussion.
groundbreaking |ˈgroundˌbrāki ng |: adjective breaking new ground; innovative; pioneering, fresh, unusual, unprecedented, inventive; advanced, state-of-the-art, pioneering, revolutionary, radical; important, noteworthy, newsworthy.

--Kudpung (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey Kudpung. I gather you are fortunate enough to be intimately familiar with the subject of the article. However, at the time of my first edit, "everything in the article that needs referencing" was not referenced. I challenged some assertions. These were then referenced. I'm happy, and our WP:V core content policy was satisfied. Incidentally, your definition of ground-breaking does not help the case for its (unreferenced) inclusion. I'll keep this watchlisted for a bit more. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 09:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Of the major editors on the article, two are from the town centre, both are highly qualified academics (one in the sciences that were developed there, the other in linguistics and lexicography). The finishing touch to radar that made it a usable tool in national defence, and which then later became a standard tool in all sorts of domains, the cavity magnetron that makes you microwave oven work, and the LED display that you probably are looking at right now, were all developed, and or invented in Malvern. The GA review was particularly stringent and set standards that went beyond those required for GA. We are therefore satisfied with the result as it has set standards for the rest of our work on the Worcestershire project. As far as we are concerned, the article is now as complete as it will ever be and we will be investing our Wikipedia time in cleaning up some really catastrophic pages that we didn't write. We'll nevertheless be keeping Malvern on our watch lists - as we do all 2,000 or so Worcestershire articles - and check for vandalism and further edits. Thank you too for your vigilance, the Wikipedia needs all the help it can get.--Kudpung (talk) 10:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a Wikipedia article is ever 'finished', and we can always use another set of eyes. Jarry1250 was right, we had a couple of statements that needed backing up. It turned out to be simply a case of repeating a couple of citations that were already present in the article. I understand why groundbreaking is not really appropriate. Science is (and should always be) understated. If we disprove Einstein's relativity or show that quantum mechanics is bunk, that would be groundbreaking. I think world leading gives the idea (it still makes me sad to see what has become of the place). Kudpung - yes, we can all usefully invest our time elsewhere, but if something needs fixing in a GA (even if minor), I think we should fix it. Now, as a friend of mine once said, I'm now off to go write some more articles ;-) GyroMagician well (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

(indent) Gyro, you as a physicist may be right about the very, very slightly awkward use of groundbreaking. I know absolutely nothing about physics - that was my dad's domain and nothing rubbed off. I'm just a humble linguist and although my subject is called Kommunikationswissenschaft it has little to do with 'scientific' research and inventing stuff ;) I found nothing offensive in the term, not have I found anything in any dictionaries that suggest it may have any Wikipedia 'peacock' term inferences.

groundbreaking |ˈgroundˌbrāki ng |

adjective

breaking new ground; innovative; pioneering.

DERIVATIVES

groundbreaker |-ˌbrākər| noun

SYNONYMS

innovative, fresh, unusual, unprecedented, inventive; advanced, state-of-the-art, pioneering, revolutionary, radical; important, noteworthy, newsworthy.

WORD TOOLKIT: groundbreaking: work, research, study, technology,

Courtesy of Oxford American Dictionary
--Kudpung (talk) 07:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggest replace {{r}} with <ref name=/> templates

Hi folks. Our use of the {{r}} template has had an unforseen and unintended consequence for the article. It transpires there is some controversy about the use of {{r}} templates, which has surfaced since our use in this article. The controversy seems unlikely to be settled any time soon. Meantime, the controversy has escalated to the point that the template has been nominated for deletion, and there is - at time of this message - an automated message at every reference where the {{r}} template is used. This has the effect of detracting from the readability of the article.

My suggestion is that we replace the {{r}} templates with <ref name=/> templates. That will make the article readable once more, so that it is (a) not collateral damage from the controversy, and (b) not ammunition for that controversy, which none of us foresaw at time of using the {{r}} template. We used it to serve a purpose, and it transpires that the <ref name=/> template serves the same purpose without controversy. My suggestion therefore is to utilise that so the article is no longer collateral damage from the controversy.

The task itself is straightforward enough. My own method is to copy and paste the <ref name=/> template into the Edit summary field, so that it is readily available without switching between windows. Then, using the 'Find' function, search for all occurances of {{r}} which will then show up highlighted. Then, copy the <ref name=/> in front of every highlighted occurance of the {{r|MyrefName}} template. I then cut the reference name (MyrefName) from the {{r|MyrefName}} template and paste it into the <ref name=/> template thus <ref name=MyrefName/>. Then I delete the bare {{r}} template and move on to the next highlighted one. This allows me to methodically work through the article with minimum time and effort, doing preview checks along the way.

That is my suggestion, for what it's worth, if you want to keep the focus on the article itself and avoid having it become part of someone's cannon fodder in an ongoing controversy. Regards Wotnow (talk) 02:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done I have now completed the template replacement for this article, in two parts, with a break between to attend to other tasks. I estimate the overall time for the template replacement exercise to be about 45 minutes, for anyone contemplating the same exercise in another article. It can be done quicker. I probably could have trimmed 10 minutes off by putting a bit of pressure on myself. Also, if doing a few articles, one gets on a roll by about the third. Wotnow (talk) 06:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Can anyone provide a sourced IPA transcription of the way Malvern is pronounced, in this article and in Great Malvern etc? People unfamiliar with the place might conceivably say /mæl-/, when I think I'm right in saying that it's /mɔl-/, but how long is the vowel (/mɔːl-/ like Marlborough?) and could it conceivably be /mɒl-/? Also, as far as the second syllable goes, is the local pronunciation rhotic? I'm thinking particularly of the older generation with firmly local roots: no doubt younger people who've moved to Malvern don't rhotacise it. Old Man of Storr (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I took the trouble of asking one of my friends, who doubles up as my only link to the town. She writes, "I am pretty sure that I and anyone I have ever met from Malvern say it like 'Mal-vern' with the 'Mal' rhyming with 'all' or 'maul' I suppose and the 'vern' rhyming with 'turn' or 'tern' or 'urn' ... 'vern' with the r heavily pronounced [is very uncommon]". I'm afraid I don't speak by IPA, and that does represent the view of only one person (albeit a long time resident). Hope it helps all the same, - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 21:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, your friend's pronunciation then is /'mɔːl-/ (I temporarily forgot that in English phonology this vowel is given as /ɔː/ and the length is more or less a convention - a narrow phonetic transcription might pin this down but it's irrelevant for our purposes). Interesting to hear that a rhotic pronunciation (pronouncing the "r" after a vowel, like a familiar West Country pronunciation of "farrrmerrr") is very uncommon. In some maps from the late 20th century it looks like Malvern may be in the rhotic area but this area has been rapidly retreating to the south-west over the years and pronouncing your Rs seems to be stigmatised all over England (Scots, Americans, etc remain perfectly happy with it). Evidently it has all but died out in this bit of Worcestershire. Part of what prompted me to ask about this is that as far as I can tell I pronounce it /mɒlvən/, with the vowel from "lot" or "toll". I can't be sure from the literature whether this is a sign that I'm fairly young or that I grew up in the Midlands (well east of Malvern) - probably both. I'm going to leave this to someone who knows better than me because it appears that vowels in words spelt "[consonant]al" like Malvern, falcon, etc. are undergoing a shift at the moment. If there's a line of different pronunciation across the Midlands with me on one side of it and Malvern on the other this makes things even more complicated. Old Man of Storr (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The standard, reasonably educated pronunciation since at least 1950 is not rhotic at all. In nearby Herefordshire, older generations with a pronounced West Country accent may still pronounce it slightly. Due partly to its long history of education with a large population of boarders from privileged families, the local Malvern accent is practically RP, though some light Worcester influence might be detected among older generations from the agricultural community. This information is original research so please don't quote it in a Wikipedia article. At least two of the major contributors to the Malvern articles are from the town.--Kudpung (talk) 13:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Bus routes

The Malvern Hills Hopper has been axed. (Malvern Gazette & Ledbury Reporter 30 April 2010 p. 9). Other bus routs have been extended, in particular the 362/363, and the 44B. Please update.--Kudpung (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Fire at historic Tudor Hotel

Hi folks. I was perusing one of the citation articles for useful or interesting material, when I read a paragraph describing buildings in which Wilson and Gully set up their water cure practice. One piece says "Gully built two embattlemented buildings, Tudor House for men and Holyrood House for women...Together they now constitute the Tudor Hotel, on the main road to the Wells, just a couple of hundred yards beyond Bellevue Terrace".

I searched the Malvern article for reference to Tudor Hotel, but found nothing. This could mean a few things (e.g. hotel exists, but nothing noted; hotel no longer exists; not noteworthy etc). So I did a Google search, and found an article about a fire. Further searches reveal that it's the same building, "built in 1852 to house Dr Gully's male water cure patients." The Chairman of the Malvern Civic Society said “It was the beginning of the water cure, the beginning of Malvern as a spa town. That’s where it all started.”

I was going to post a comment here as both a query about McMenemy's comment, and a flag for possible inclusion in the Malvern article if deemed relevant (e.g. historic and/or landmark building). My Google search was intended to either answer the query or give leads, with comment and citation here for consideration. My query has indeed been answered in the process of doing the search, but not in a manner I'd have liked. Such is life. At any rate, the comment is now posted for consideration.

I could of course add something in the article myself, but I prefer in the first instance to defer to those of you who are natives of the area, as you may be in a better position than me to provide context for any reference to the building. Regards Wotnow (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Who's notable?

KP, I notice you removed Cher Lloyd from the list of notables. I don't expect she'll be remembered as long as the likes of Gully, but she is a current figure, in that she appears on a popular national TV show. It's a bit of fun - shouldn't she be included, for as long as she lasts, at least? She has reached the lofty heights of the cover of the Gazette: http://www.malverngazette.co.uk/news/8415751.Does_Cher_have_the_X_Factor_/?ref=mr. GyroMagician (talk) 10:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps if she gets a record contract? Bmcln1 (talk) 11:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Well Gyro, and what about all the times I've been in the Gazette and didn't get a mention in a Wikipedia article? ;) I would say that if she were the calibre of that lass who went to Dysons and ended up as Home Secretary, then she can be listed. In fact we've been deleting TV talent show contestants from all over the 'pedia. What if we at least wait until until she wins? --Kudpung (talk) 12:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

When you make national TV, I'll add you to the list ;-) I think one of WPs strengths is that it can be very current, but I don't mind waiting if you prefer. GyroMagician (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, FWIW I've spoken on French and German national TV :) If she had made The News at Ten or Hard Talk, or even Midlands Today, i.e. been the subject of a programme or a review in a national daily, or if she were an actor in a soap, then iIHMO she would meet our criteria for BLP notability (which applies equally to mentions of people on other pages and lists). On a personal note, I find that to see her rubbing shoulders with our Nobel laureates and Radar inventors is a bit hard to swallow, but I'm slowly getting a reputation round here for being a rather strict interpreter of the rules ;-) --Kudpung (talk) 04:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I know what you mean. Notable is a strange concept. There are a great many incredible scientists who's names most of us would not recognise, while we are familiar with an assortment of actors or musicians of questionable quality. Maybe it's the difference between famous and notable? I have tended to think of the lists of notable people as 'people you might have heard of', but maybe that's the wrong interpretation. GyroMagician (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, precisely. I mean there's a few names on our list that most people have never heard of, but if it weren't for them, we'd all be doing the goose step round Barnard's Green on Saturday mornings. --Kudpung (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggested page move

Page Move debate

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Thee debate was closed on 1 December 2010 as: No consensus. As Malvern, Worcestershire clearly has has primacy, there is strictly no need for the 'Worcestershire' in the page title. The page should be renamed simply Malvern with a hatnote for disambiguation. Rationale: Malvern, Worcestershire, has over 1,000 years of history, has a population of 28749, the page has an average of around 300 hits per day, not including the several pages for its town centre, and suburbs. All the other Malverns are named after it. In contrast, other settlements of the same name were not established until long after the discovery of the Americas, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa: By hits: Malvern, Worcestershire, UK, 28,749. About 300 hits per day. Pennsylvania, USA 3,059. About 101 hits per day. Ontario, Canada 44,315. 52 hits: per day Victoria, Australia 9,422. About 42 hits per day. Arkansas, USA 9,021. About 39 hits per day. Ohio, USA 1,218. About 10 hits per day. Iowa, USA 1,323. About 9 hits per day. South Australia 2,718. About 7 hits per day. Alabama, USA, 1,251. 4 hits per day. By pop: Ontario, Canada 44315. 52 hits per day Malvern, Worcestershire, UK, 28,749. About 300 hits per day. Victoria, Australia 9,422. About 42 hits per day. Arkansas, USA 9,021. About 39 hits per day. Pennsylvania, USA 3,059. About 101 hits per day. South Australia 2,718. About 7 hits per day. Iowa, USA 1,323. About 9 hits per day. Alabama, USA, 1,251. 4 hits per day. Ohio, USA 1,218. About 10 hits per day. --Kudpung (talk) 01:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC) By 'What links here?' Worcestershire over 500 Pennsylvania 269 Toronto 253 Victoria 134 Iowa 112 Arkansas 91 Ohio 51 South Australia 35 Alabama 21 Oppose for it to be the primary topic it needs to have a majority of pageviews and incoming links. Sure, it has the most of all Malverns, but only a plurality. DC T•C 23:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Also, Malvern, Toronto has 50% more people than this Malvern. DC T•C 23:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Support. In terms of page views it receives the majority of views. In terms of 'importance' it has history on its side, and the other malverns only appear to be suburbs of larger settlements. (In the case of the Toronto one it is a neighbourhood within a district within Toronto). Quantpole (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Comment: (Declaring my biases: User:Kudpung pointed this debate out to me after I voted "support" (against eventual consensus) in the pagemove discussion at Talk:Cambridge.) I'm going neutral on this for the time being. I'm uncomfortable about the sheer number of venues at which these UK placename page moves are being discussed: it would be better to have a central debate and generate better guidance than WP:PRIMARY seems to be supplying. (Is such a debate taking place?) Because I haven't been taking a general interest in the debate, the only case I have to compare with this one is Cambridge, where I was mildly involved in the big pagemove balagan. I do accept that, were we to take pageview proportion and inbound links proportion as the decisive factors, this article has a better argument for being at Malvern than Cambridge (in Cambs) does for being at Cambridge. (This Malvern has a greater proportion of the total pageviews for all Malverns than Cambridge UK does for all Cambridges; it also has a greater proportion of the inbound wikilinks.) However I would like to see consensus emerge somewhere central as to which factors we're treating as most critical, since the closing admin at the Cambridge page move seemed to regard pageview proportion as a problematic measure and inbound link proportion as only a "weakly supporting" factor. (Personally, having spent a bunch of time in the past "fixing" links to dab pages, I am pretty leery of treating inbound wikilink proportion as decisive. I've seen how common it is for "lazy" editors (and I'm often lazy myself) to create links to dab pages when a more precise topic exists and is clearly identifiable). So, there's a whole bunch of fence-sitting for you, but that's how I see it ... Gonzonoir (talk) 08:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Support - per statistics given; majority != absolute majority, so this is the primary topic. --Joshua Issac (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Comment: I too am probably essentially neutral on this, although if the truth be known, I'm probably leaning towards a weak oppose. I'm not too surprised at skepticism of various measures. It is far from certain that some correlative indicators are measures of underlying constructs of interest, quite apart from the issue of which constructs are of interest, let alone the question of what is meaningful. Personally I find it handy if I type placename X into the Wikipedia search field, and I get a drop-down menu of X-place options with their home countries, or states, or counties alongside the primary name. For me as a searcher, it makes for easier searching. As a searcher (not as Wotnow - Wotnow knows about Malvern, Worcestershire, as does Kudpung, or GyroMagician, etc. So our own perceptions are not reliable indicators. We must look to the perceptions of those who know little or nothing of Malvern), "Malvern, Worcestershire" as a search return instantly tells me something useful without having to go anywhere near a disambiguation page. While Malvern may or may not have seemed U.K.-unique to me, the "Worcestershire" bit instantly told me that it was in the U.K., as I, and pretty-much every educated person who I know of, knows that Worcestershire is a place in the U.K. I also see that there's some other Malverns in the world. That's interesting. I don't have time to check them out now, but I know that all I have to do is type "Malvern" into the search field and I get the options, so I don't have to remember anything else, and I can come back to it at a later time. The upshot is that I suspect it's better to leave the name as it is. This two-word combination instantly imparts a lot of information that would otherwise entail more searching and reading. So I think it's a very efficient piece of information. Regards Wotnow (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

20th century history

I have several of these books at hand. They really provide a lot of social history. They can be obtained from the Museum, but I did not mention that because I thought it might be considered advertizing. Would it? I think it is the references which have pushed the byte count over unquestioned limit. Will take out if considered excessive. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 04:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Research

Based on personal recollection -- I worked there 1953 to 1955. There seems to be an inconsistency in dates of mergers between Wikipedia pages for laboratories that merged after my time. I am fairly certain another physicist at RRE made a famous named discovery after he came to the U.S. but want to check before putting him in. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 04:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

comments on research

Thank you for your contributions. This Malvern article will never be complete, but then, it's not the aim of an encyclopedia to be a complete reference work to any one subject. It's had the input and collaboration of a coupe of ancient residents and people who worked at RRE from the timeit came to Malvern through to the change over to QinetiQ. We welcome of course any correction to dates and details. As regards references, usually one verifiable source is sufficient for a statement in the text. A long row of superscript index numbers could affect the aesthetics of the page. I would be inclined to use one only, and add the other works of literature to the bibliography section if they are not already listed. I have left a further message for you on your talk page. --Kudpung (talk) 14:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Re: changes to sections on research, 20th century history, and minor changes

I will type these on User_talk:Kudpung later this evening Michael P. Barnett (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Michael. No need to do that. Do go ahead put any suggestions for the article on its talk page here. Several Malvern and WP:WORCS contributors are watching this page and may wish to come up in with more suggestions. For one thing, if I remember rightly, we are using Harvard style citation templates for the operation of the reflist on Malvern because of an eventual WP:FAC, but which is in fact a technicality that is beyond me! --Kudpung (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

---

(I thought I was supposed to type this on User_talk:Kudpung but it vanished. Where do I find rules on what should be typed where? I put what follows on my page, clicked Save page after previewing, and got your message!)

20th century history

1. As requested, I reworded to avoid run of citation numbers.

2. I give list of topics of photographs as indication of matters that were topical, which have changed, and which have not (assume reader can fill in). Will omit if considered inappropriate.

3. I mention individuals for possible use in searches by biographers, social and cultural historians. Will omit if considered inappropriate.

research

4. Additions to research topics is from perspective determined by my background, very different from electrical engineers' and physicists working essentially on electronics. Will omit if skews overall perspective deemed optimal by the concensus.

notable people

5. Additions to notable persons likewise plus personal acquaintance.

6. I have not found article or book that states John Gunn was at Malvern. But have found citations to his papers with Gibson that give his affiliation as RRE. So will include in Notable people in next pass.

7. For Uttley I would like to give reference used in body of article but when I try using same construction twice I get two entries in reference list. Where do I find what to do? Should I redo using name= construction?

8. If any of the people I added to "notables" are thought not, please delete.

other, specific to article

9. Do numbers of people in radar community include RRDE or not? Either way, is clarification needed and, if so, what is it?

10. Would area of TRE (and RRDE) be of interest. In retrospect, I think TRE was several hundred acres, but not at all sure.

11. How can inconsistencies of dates of mergers in Wikipedia pages for mergers be resolved?

12. In demographics, should latest census results be supplemented by pointer to where earlier results can be found by users interested in trends.

general

13. (leaving this in but not expecting further comment -- will come up with some superscript paraphrases and ask if acceptable) Any way getting citation numbers in line? Alternatively, how to reword in style acceptable to Wikipedia "This has been discussed extensively. Early and recent accounts include [1] and [2] respectively."

14. Finding citable sources for facts stated from "accepted wisdom" or memory has been most time consuming part of editing for me. A message about helping train students to work with Wikapedia appeared in a few sessions recently. Any possibility that students could assist with the literature searching as part of team effort?

15. I will join the Malvern group. I was a Government Fellow from 1953 to 1955, in Leo Pincherle's section, with David Jenkins and Geoffrey Chester (who I have seen several times when visiting Cornell). I shared office with Michael Radcliffe (who went to Carnegie Tech) and later with David Howarth (who went to Manchester U). Hodlin got me to put construction of quarterly report of distribution of effort on different projects onto punched cards, as experiment.

Thanks. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 04:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your valued ideas Michael. Other contributors to the Malvern article will probably chime in here as the article has already been promoted to WP:GA after a very legthy review, and we hope soon to get it promoted to WP:FA. Basically, as I mentioned before, for an encyclopedic entry, the scope of the article is sufficiently broad and detailed. However, as you have correctly identified, there might well be areas where a call for greater accuracy is needed for FA status.Kudpung (talk) 05:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced items

Unfortunately two entries to the list of notable people have had to be removed for lack of sourcing:

• Robin A. Smith, Head of Physics Department at TRE, first Director of the MIT Center for Materials Science and Engineering, Vice-Chancellor Heriot-Watt University.
• A.M. Uttley, developed AI trainer (flight simulator)

No unsourced material may be introduced to a Wikipedia Good Articel. See note in edit mode code.--Kudpung (talk) 07:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced items

• I put in John Gunn, with his Wikipedia page as source and will amend his entry to mention TRE.

• I restored Uttley with flight simulator article as source. This creates a second entry in list of references. How do I find out how to code it properly?

• I will email Heriot Watt University for reference to obit on Robin Smith and put him back when I get it. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Michael, and welcome aboard! Good catch with John Gunn - I had no idea he had worked in Malvern. I added the Physics Today obituary for him as a ref. For ref formatting, the easiest thing to do is copy one that already exists. Basically, we use a named reference in the page body, and put the actual reference details in a citation template at the bottom of the page, in alphabetical order by ref name (you get to make-up a name, we don't really have a rule there). You should be able to find examples in the page for just about anything you will need to cite, or for more details see the citation template examples. If you get stuck, put a note on the talk page here and either I or WotNow will point you in the right direction. GyroMagician (talk) 09:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW, how about the Royal Society obit. for Robin Smith? GyroMagician (talk) 09:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the references! I put in the reference to the Royal Society obit just now. I tried a search on Physics Today yesterday from home, but the system was cranky, and the fire alarm went off in the Physics Department office when I phoned to ask around. Thanks for the coding help, too. I used the Malvern site as basis for suggestion in Village_pump_(idea_lab) under "Updating a large number ..." (haven't figured out how to link directly, tried # but did not work) . I think I may have source of student help. More anon. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 01:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

---

History of TRE / RRDE / RRE / ...

I have a small amount of information, non-secret but probably not known to people who were not trained as chemists, that I will be glad to provide if requested on User:Michael P. Barnett Michael P. Barnett (talk) 01:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Michael. More details about TRE would probably be be more at home on the Telecommunications Research Establishment page. In fact, if I remember correctly, the whole TRE/RRE/RSRE/DRA/DERA/Qinetiq set of pages could do with some development. Would you mind having a look at those and seeing what you can do? There was talk of merging some pages a while ago - I'm not sure what happened to that. GyroMagician (talk) 08:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I was guilty of starting that merge stuff. I'm still not so sure of the best solution. It means either a collection of stubs under each different name of the establishment or the long article to cover them all. Problems would be however, that there would be endless discussions on what to name the page. Everyone who worked there during a single phase of its existence would want that name as the primary name. I think my dad (now nearly 91) is one of the few still alive who worked through all names except QinetiQ. In hindsight I think they are best left as separate articles, but a table template could be made of the names, the years, and the tech. focus, and perhaps the name of the director, that could appear on each page, plus the Malvern page, and all the Malvern related pages where the RRE is mentioned. Not only is the site the largest employer in Malvern, but I believe it is or was one of the largest employers in the whole of the county.--Kudpung (talk) 13:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Despite its varying names, RRE and successors are a sinlge establishment, so should have one article. I think DERA/Qinetiq have other facilities, and should thus have have an article on the entire concern, with a summary on RRE and "main" link. TRE RSRE, etc should be redirects to the RRE article. In saying this I am suggesting tha tthe article should be at RRE (expanded), but I have no strong view that the article should not be at TRE or RSRE. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Notable people: List article?

I don't want to jump the gun on this, but as the list is steadily growing, maybe we ought to start considering splitting it off into a separate list article, leaving a nice prose section highlighting a handful of the most illustrious residents.--Kudpung (talk) 12:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi KP. I guess the list is getting a bit long, but I prefer having it on the main page rather than separated. Honestly, I'm extremely unlikely to read a list of famous residents (of anywhere), but if I find it as part of another article, I will likely browse through. But if the list keeps growing, then I guess we might have to. GyroMagician (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, well there's absolutely no panic, although it might almost be an idea for a new page on the lines of this. Depends on photo availability to make it interesting.--Kudpung (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)