Talk:Registered Buildings and Conservation Areas of the Isle of Man/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

editing

User:Ehrenkater, thank you for contributing to this. Sorry I lost a bunch in a big edit conflict. I partially restored your edits, will continue to go through, though I may have to ask questions on some facts. You sound knowledgeable, glad you're here. --Doncram (talk) 00:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Let's not edit war, of course. I promise to go through all your edits that I lost. One minor thing is that I set up wikilinks, including for some which will turn out to be minor and maybe/probably not require an article. Many of the wikilinks will need to be revised, to be sensible names, etc. For the moment could we leave the exact wording given in the Isle of Man's register though, and leave them as links? I think it will be obvious how to handle this later, but not just yet. --Doncram (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Ehrenkater, along those lines, I put in some temporary notes like "try George Hotel". Obviously I mean to add the Isle of Man one to that disambiguation page. Can you please leave those notes in place for now. If this is too difficult, I could move this to Draft space or to my User space or something and try to put a lock on this. I would rather cooperate in mainspace, but that only works if we can cooperate, please. --Doncram (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Ehrenkater, please desist. I would welcome your discussing things, but you have not responded at this Talk page. Obviously it is a work in progress. I now prefer to develop it some, and will be happy to invite you back, but I don't want to battle now. --Doncram (talk) 01:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Doncram. I have read what you added to your own talk page, and am responding here as you requested.

Yes, I had noticed that you had moved the article back into your own user space, even though you do not own the article, as you seem to think with the expression "invite you back". I have already made a number of comments, both on your talk page and in my edit summaries. I am trying to be constructive, which is why I pointed out that some changes are needed to the draft: preferably (in order not to waste the time of you and others) before you add a lot more inappropriate stuff into the article.

I would also query why you are attempting to create quite a long new article without knowing much about the subject matter.

I repeat that it's not just some but most of these items that will not merit their own new article: neither based on their notability, nor based on the availability of editors to research such articles. And for those items that do, the name of the article will usually be different from what you have attempted to wikilink, so why bother?

It is also undesirable for a new article to rely on a single source, especially when we know that source contains errors, so it is not a good policy to insist on sticking to the exact wording of the source.

Just to point out: the Isle of Man government has to work within a limited budget, and it is not going to be a high priority for them to check and double-check the content of their web page or their internal sources for it.

Please work smarter not harder!----Ehrenkater (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for responding here. I will try not to have too thin a skin about the multiple insults you throw my way. I could comment back with insults about your intelligence or knowledge or lack thereof in various respects, too, but that might not be very productive. Maybe some things you mention are moot or don't need to be discussed out, but I'll try to respond some.

I have now returned this to mainspace, after editing this article a lot more and after editing at many related disambiguation pages, including St. Mary's Church, Christ Church, Woodlands, Foundry (disambiguation), Bridge House and more, which now mention the Isle of Man registered buildings of such names, and now have inbound links to this article. You seemed not to understand what I was trying to accomplish with trying links that might well go to disambiguation pages, existing or needed, but that is moot now.

About the first column, mostly redlinks, I do think that it is best for us to display what seems to be "official" names of buildings as designated by the Isle of Man government, and not second guess them about what they should have named places. This is perhaps elevating to "official" some names that were not really thought out for that purpose by Isle of Man government, but from other experience with historic registries I do think that for the most part this is best, in particular to avoid wp:OR on our part. Some of their names are too common/general and require disambiguation to avoid linking to disambiguation pages or already-existing unrelated wikipedia pages; I have put in, by pipelinking, more narrow names where necessary (e.g. along the lines of using "Christ Church, Laxey" rather than "Christ Church").

Could you please refrain from directly changing what is displayed in the first column, but rather discuss suggested changes here first. I do have decent reasoning for this. If you disagree, please discuss here. I would prefer not to edit war in the article or have to escalate disagreement to wp:ANI or other conflict resolution venues immediately. Please be civil, including having the respect to discuss issues in discussion sections here, a better forum for actual communication, and please don't try to get by with mere edit summaries. --Doncram (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Also while I was previously promising to re-examine each of your previous edits to try to find merit in them, please forgive me as I take that back now. The list-article has been developed a lot now, and quick reactions to its previous form (whether super-wise or ill-considered) aren't terribly important to reconsider now; either something is an issue now or it is not. --Doncram (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

There seem to be several issues, do let's try to address them one by one. --Doncram (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

duplicate links

I reverted an editor's changes which they stated were to remove duplicative links, supported by a policy/guideline about overlinking. That's a big change to try to force all at once without discussion, so I reverted. (This leaves way forward to make smaller changes again which should not be controversial. If you make big controversial changes then non-controversial ones, then the non-controversial ones will likely get reverted too. It would make sense to cooperate making non-controversial changes first.) Please discuss here.

For one thing, this is not anywhere near the top problem with the article, if it is a problem. Development of actual content should take priority over formatting-type issue that could easily be addressed later when this is brought up for Featured List or such.

Secondly, if i recall correctly, the guidance about overlinking is addressing multiple links to same article within general text, and is not about sortable tables. Years ago i discussed this with editors in Featured List article reviews. If linking is not repeated, then sorting the table into different orders brings up unlinked items first, which tends to look bad. I imagine that there are numerous Featured Lists with repeated linking in sortable tables; please do link me to any substantial discussion/guidance if I am really missing stuff here. If necessary we can seek FLC editors' input here.

Also note that I opened discussion about presentation order...if presentation order is changed then the first instances will be different. Easier to address later.

There should be no rush to force edits along these lines in the article now, it can be addressed easily after discussion resolved. --Doncram (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I've copied here the wording at MOS:DUPLINK in full.

"Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead.

In glossaries, which are primarily referred to for encyclopedic entries on specific terms rather than read from top to bottom like a regular article, it is usually desirable to repeat links (including to other terms in the glossary) that were not already linked in the same entry (see Template:Glossary link).

Duplicate linking in stand-alone and embedded lists is permissible if it significantly aids the reader. This is most often the case when the list is presenting information that could just as aptly be formatted in a table, and is expected to be parsed for particular bits of data, not read from top to bottom. If the list is normal article prose that happens to be formatted as a list, treat it as normal article prose.

Duplicate links in an article can be found using User:Ucucha/duplinks."

I do not believe you can credibly claim that to repeat a link to e.g. Douglas (or another place) a large number of times "significantly aids the reader".

Thanks, I did already check wp:OVERLINKING, which also covers it. As you see MOS:DUPLINK definitely does allow repeated linking in tables; I guess there's room to disagree about what helps the reader. Where I am coming from is much editing on heritage register list articles, mostly within the U.S. NRHP system (e.g. List of RHPs in Syracuse), but in other countries too. Take a U.K. example, Listed buildings in Cardiff. It is wide practice, certainly most common, and in fact I know of no exceptions, for town/region type information to be repeatedly linked in all heritage register list-articles. Browse in List of heritage registers. We could invite editors at WikiProject Historic sites' Talk page wt:HSITES to comment here or to discuss there. Or invite Featured List editors (wt:FLC?). Possibly relevant also would be other Isle of Man list-articles (although maybe if they differ they should be changed too) ... there is List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course which is similar (about places, includes coords, etc.) but the issue does not come up there.

I do think if you get more familiar with existing practice that your opinion will change. Again, though, this cannot be a huge priority here, it is a pretty small technical / formatting matter which could be changed easily later. Actually, along those lines, I suppose I don't really care about this too much. There is a basic principle though, that editors should seek to get to some consensus, and I would argue that the default consensus should be to go with Wikipedia-wide heritage register practice. How about your browsing around and rounding up some others to comment, and I would be willing to go along with a different local consensus if that is a genuine consensus of a a few editors. --Doncram (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Re presentation order, I cannot see how it can possibly help the reader to have the index numbers in the article at all, let alone using them to decide the presentation order. This is a low priority article, which very few readers will use, and it should be kept concise.

I'll respond at #presentation order. --Doncram (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

You say: About the first column, mostly redlinks, I do think that it is best for us to display what seems to be "official" names of buildings as designated by the Isle of Man government, and not second guess them about what they should have named places. This is perhaps elevating to "official" some names that were not really thought out for that purpose by Isle of Man government, but from other experience with historic registries I do think that for the most part this is best, in particular to avoid wp:OR on our part. Some of their names are too common/general and require disambiguation to avoid linking to disambiguation pages or already-existing unrelated wikipedia pages; I have put in, by pipelinking, more narrow names where necessary (e.g. along the lines of using "Christ Church, Laxey" rather than "Christ Church").

Agreed, of course these are not official names designated by the government, and there is no need to treat them as such. It is hardly OR to abbreviate or remove duplication of a name. (If in a small number of particular cases there is a concern about OR, it is always possible to add a reference.) To use Christ Church, Laxey as an example (and a fortiori for buildings that are merely designated by their street number!): until such time as it is demonstrated otherwise, there is a presumption that this fails the notability criterion for an article, and therefore a redlink is not required for now.

I'll respond at #first column display. --Doncram (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Re the edit on Castletown and 4 other local authorities which you pointed out that you reverted, let me explain: there are 17 historic parishes on the island, and I think they are all listed in the "parish" column of the article. The 5 others are not parishes, and it is pointless and misleading to create a redirect and then link to it. Castletown, Peel and Ramsey are designated as towns, and Port Erin as a village district. Laxey was until recently also a village district, but is now actually just an electoral ward of Garff, as are Lonan and Maughold. See Local government in the Isle of Man.

You also ask about location information. The 1:50,000 Landranger map of the island is available at https://www.bing.com/maps, and this shows a lot of information, including for instance the location of the Albert Tower. However it unfortunately does not show parishes. (I have a paper version published in 1980 which does.) I also have copies of the Isle of Man 1:25,000 Outdoor Leisure maps, published by the IOM Government and dated 2009, which obviously show even more detail and clarity, including parish boundaries, but I don't think these are available on line. They say that copies can be ordered on line at mapping@dlge.gov.iom, but that may be out of date.----Ehrenkater (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll respond at #local authority areas. --Doncram (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

first column display

Also I reverted a bunch of changes to first column display, many in an edit labelled "Add various notes etc". Actually I rolled this back in the process of rolling back other edits about repeated links, a different issue. Please note that I asked for this to be discussed, above, already, rather than edit-warred about in the article. Please do discuss, please respond to what I said there. Edit summaries are not where real discussion happens. --Doncram (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

(copied to here): You say: About the first column, mostly redlinks, I do think that it is best for us to display what seems to be "official" names of buildings as designated by the Isle of Man government, and not second guess them about what they should have named places. This is perhaps elevating to "official" some names that were not really thought out for that purpose by Isle of Man government, but from other experience with historic registries I do think that for the most part this is best, in particular to avoid wp:OR on our part. Some of their names are too common/general and require disambiguation to avoid linking to disambiguation pages or already-existing unrelated wikipedia pages; I have put in, by pipelinking, more narrow names where necessary (e.g. along the lines of using "Christ Church, Laxey" rather than "Christ Church").

Agreed, of course these are not official names designated by the government, and there is no need to treat them as such. It is hardly OR to abbreviate or remove duplication of a name. (If in a small number of particular cases there is a concern about OR, it is always possible to add a reference.) To use Christ Church, Laxey as an example (and a fortiori for buildings that are merely designated by their street number!): until such time as it is demonstrated otherwise, there is a presumption that this fails the notability criterion for an article, and therefore a redlink is not required for now. ----Ehrenkater (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

About what text displays, for the moment I want to keep pretty much exactly to the official listing names. Why do something different, especially if dropping the official registration numbers is under discussion, too. It would be crazy not to keep a close correspondence. Unless there is an actual clear typo where we really know something else was intended. And I suppose we could footnote any such cases.

About having redlinks or not, I agree that for some/many we will eventually want not to show redlinks. Not sure which are which yet, and how to draw the line. For some like Ballaradcliffe House, Kiondroghad Road the registration documents include multiple pages of description and history, and there could be an article. Not sure about Christ Church, Laxey, in particular, about which I just added some info from three sources, although the IoM registration document has very little. It looks like a very charming building designed by an architect who has an article in Wikipedia, was recently renovated, is apparently still in use as a church, seems to me like it could have an article. About Leodest Methodist Chapel, for a different example, it seems to be vacant and rather plain and maybe all that ever will be known about it is that it was a Primitive Methodist church and built in 1835. But I don't know if having this list-article open, and perhaps inviting some local historians or librarians to participate, could maybe bring out some history books and other sources that would enable this, too, to get some serious coverage. It's too soon to tell, for right now, IMO.

But, when/where we do agree that an article is not wanted, then I want to handle it like for "blacklink" items in List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course. E.g. for "Dub Cottage" there, we have no redlink, but there is a redirect set up from Dub Cottage to the row having pic and some info about it, i.e. it redirects to List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course#Dub Cottage. Note for places like Christ Church, Laxey, where the redlink currently shows in Christ Church disambiguation page, we do want to help readers get to either a row having some stuff about it, or to an article, eventually, and leaving it as a redlink for a little while at least is fine and good IMO.

I'd like to focus on which items have the highest need for articles, and proceed with creating them, and perhaps try to involve more editors and historians in that effort. There is expression "redlinks help wikipedia grow"; it is more welcoming to involve people if they see that articles are suggested/wanted, and presumably they will try to choose to create the more important ones. I don't want to turn away others' interest just yet. There is essay wp:REDBLUE about balance for that, though. Ehrenkater, I thought that The Albert Tower was one of the more important ones to create; can you suggest a short list of others? And/or help plug along creating short sourced descriptions, which might help decide which are which. --Doncram (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

presentation order

I wonder about re-ordering to sort by registration number, which is approximately same as sorting by date of registration, rather than the current by parish then registration number order. It's a sortable table, so readers can view it either way. --Doncram (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

(copied to here): Re presentation order, I cannot see how it can possibly help the reader to have the index numbers in the article at all, let alone using them to decide the presentation order. This is a low priority article, which very few readers will use, and it should be kept concise. --Ehrenkater (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

About including the index number: Well there are a lot of heritage registers where an assigned number is very prominently used in practice to precisely identify specific landmarks, say in the U.S. where the NRHP reference number is widely used. In some registers like the Los Angeles local register, e.g. List of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments in Downtown Los Angeles, the number assigned is the order of listing. And that seems to be the case here. The Isle of Man documents use the numbers in an official way, e.g. being titled to be about "Registered Building No. 53" or whatever, so it seems that being able to look up by their number is important. Also it is helpful for matching up, cross-checking, this Wikipedia list vs. the Isle of Man list. Most (or all?) in List of heritage registers include any official numbers. Here maybe the Isle of Man numbers don't look very official and I may be elevating the importance of numbers they didn't themselves perceive as important, but they do refer to them in their documents.

By the way there seems to be no number 52, 224, 231, 235, 236, 243, 253, 254 currently in this list-article, suggesting there were some listed and later delisted or proposed but not accepted, or some other stories. In other heritage register lists, Wikipedia editors often do choose to cover delisted items in a separate section. Also there are two 237s currently... hmm, one of those is a typo by me, Parville should be 235 not 237, i will fix that. Anyhow, these numbers are important for verifiability, i.e. to help us and anyone else ensure a correspondence.

But, I hear you that you don't like the idea of main presentation being in registration number order, and I won't plan to change that. Ordering as the Isle of Man registry presents it, as now, is okay. --Doncram (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

delisting example

Note, number 224 would naturally have been the buildings at 22-24 Victoria Street, in between number 223 (18a-20 Victoria Street) and number 225 (26 Victoria St.) Photos such as [1] show were matching to the ornate style of 26 Victoria St. The registration document for 26 Victoria Street covers them. But Google street view shows their facade was ruined. So I presume this was listed, then later delisted after ruin. --Doncram (talk) 05:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Andreas Rectory

Is the building at 54.365831°N 4.442509°W / 54.365831; -4.442509 (click on coords, then select Google maps/satellite view to see) the Andreas rectory, as described and mapped in Andreas Rectory registration document? There are no photos. Outline in Google satellite view is somewhat different, as if porches/additions had been stripped off. --Doncram (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not 100% certain, but pretty darn sure those coordinates are correct, and I am putting them into this article. I do welcome correction/refinement. --Doncram (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

more notable ones needing articles

Which ones are more obviously important and/or have good sourcing available? --Doncram (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Queens Pier

Queens Pier Tram

Queens Pier / Ramsey Pier has good number of photos available in Media related to Ramsey Pier at Wikimedia Commons and some more in Media related to Ramsey, Isle of Man at Wikimedia Commons. --Doncram (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

cliff-top merchants homes along Ballure Road

Notability of Sea Cliffe and others is explained as due to their being part of a group, c.f. Sea Cliff text. These pre-date Ballure Road which was built in 1764, and predate Ramsey Harbor being built (how? meaning breakwaters, piers, what?). These were homes of merchants with private or shared routes down to the beach, for moving trade goods (Sea Cliff's route shared for 1 shilling per year by adjacent houses). These routes were also used for access by anyone to ancient parish church of Maughold and Ballure Chapel. Registration materials share some text. Efficient to discuss together in one article. Include Ballure Inn (pre-1700); Beach Cottage; Sea Cliffe. Also not registered (gone?) is East Cliff? --Doncram (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

local authority areas

What is wrong with the current list-article's links to parishes? This edit got reverted by me, actually in rolling back other stuff, but I am not sure about this. I did think the existing links were working though. --Doncram (talk) 17:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I am upfront inclined to want to make corrections of location information where the main source (the Isle of Man's registry info) is actually factually wrong, while I am upfront dis-inclined to change their chosen registration names (the first column info). For example apparently they misidentify the location of The Albert Tower, per this diff. I would like for the correct location to be described here, with sourcing where different. What source shows the boundary lines which are relevant for the Albert Tower location? Does one or another online mapping service show the local authority area lines? (By the way, for jurisdictions in another country, MapQuest maps is very good for showing town/county boundary lines, which Google Maps does not show. What works here?) Or is there a good PDF map available? --Doncram (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

(copied to here): Re the edit on Castletown and 4 other local authorities which you pointed out that you reverted, let me explain: there are 17 historic parishes on the island, and I think they are all listed in the "parish" column of the article. The 5 others are not parishes, and it is pointless and misleading to create a redirect and then link to it. Castletown, Peel and Ramsey are designated as towns, and Port Erin as a village district. Laxey was until recently also a village district, but is now actually just an electoral ward of Garff, as are Lonan and Maughold. See Local government in the Isle of Man.

You also ask about location information. The 1:50,000 Landranger map of the island is available at https://www.bing.com/maps, and this shows a lot of information, including for instance the location of the Albert Tower. However it unfortunately does not show parishes. (I have a paper version published in 1980 which does.) I also have copies of the Isle of Man 1:25,000 Outdoor Leisure maps, published by the IOM Government and dated 2009, which obviously show even more detail and clarity, including parish boundaries, but I don't think these are available on line. They say that copies can be ordered on line at mapping@dlge.gov.iom, but that may be out of date.----Ehrenkater (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, Ehrenkater, I agree with you completely, i.e. to label the column as being about local authorities rather than parishes (which the source used) and to put in links as you did. And probably the redirects that I set up for a couple "parishes" should be deleted from Wikipedia. I thought it was clever to create and use those, with expectation they could be redirected to different targets if necessary, but it was not. Perhaps we should footnote about Albert Tower's location, that it is stated to be in Ramsay but is not.

I see that Open Street Map has the local authority boundaries! Including showing the Albert Tower's location, and the showing the edges of Port Erin and Port St. Mary. E.g. click on OSM map within the "Map all coordinates" box in the article, and zoom in on any border. Or click on any coordinates, then choose Open Street Map to view them.

Please do go ahead with any of these corrections, and/or I will get around to it eventually. Thank you for your attention to this, and for letting it stay open for a few days while I got more comfortable about it. sincerely, --Doncram (talk) 21:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Al changed per User:Ehrenkater's direction. Note about "Laxey (parish)", there is an assertion of Laxey being a parish in infobox in Laxey article, which should be changed to Garff (sheading) i suppose, am not sure about sheading vs. parish coverage. --Doncram (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

too many pictures, and other negative tags

The article was tagged with {{too many photos}} which I just removed, for discussion here. How are their too many pictures? As for all other list-articles in List of heritage registers and almost every other kind of list of places, it is obviously helpful to have a pic for each item, IMO. --Doncram (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I removed several other negative tags with edit summaries calling for any disputant to open discussion here and explain themselves. Remaining is a general notability tag and a tag about "intricate detail" which links to WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Personally I think the overall topic here is obviously notable, and there will not be any general support for deletion of this article, though anyone is welcome to try with an AFD. Also this is hardly an indiscriminate collection of information... like other historic register lists it is a complete collection of officially designated historic sites. There was/is no random selection of historic sites; this is exactly all that are designated by the Isle of Man government. Could anyone else comment please, and perhaps go ahead and remove these last two? --Doncram (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Leodest Methodist Church, which was identified as a farm building in filename and description and Commons category

Nonsense about there being too many pictures. Have reached 35 photos, yay, with addition of my finding a mislabelled pic of Leodest Methodist Church. Whenever an Isle of Man resident or visitor gets interested, it will be easy for them to find and photo many more here, now that there are coordinates for 100 or so. This list-article, like other historic registry list-articles have done, will facilitate more development, more world-wide and local knowledge about these places. I bet that I have virtually visited many historic sites in Isle of Man (and know something about now), that most locals haven't heard of. I know enough to recognize a historic building when I see a mislabelled pic of it, ponder that, ye of little faith. It will only get better. --Doncram (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Finch Road location issues

There's a sequence of separate registrations for buildings at 4, 6, 8, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, and 24 Finch Road, for which the corresponding registration documents include mixed up photos, I am pretty sure. Some, perhaps all, of the buildings are built in same style by same builder in same era; they are a bit hard to tell apart. Photos in registration documents are old, e.g. show vacant lots inbetween some where there are infill buildings now. But it seems possible to figure out which each photo portrays, in terms of which specific location in Google Streetview. However, some of the photos seem to be attached to the wrong documents, because they depict locations in a different order than one sees going down the street. In the list-article up to now I have put in coordinates which match to the photos, and which therefore might be incorrect. It needs to be fixed, with notes about the photo inclusion errors. It would help if any of the buildings actually had street numbers posted. If anyone else has patience to sort it all out, that would be great, or I will get back to it eventually.

By the way, these all should probably be covered in one article, perhaps 4, 6, 8, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, and 24 Finch Road or 4-24 Finch Road. --Doncram (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually a map with numbering is included in #16's registration, so this can be sorted out, yay. --Doncram (talk) 00:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

correspondence notes

To address:

• typos, minor discrepancies which could be addressed simply by simple edits to the DEFA webpage
• missing registration document(s) and changes to pages included within them.
  • For RB12 "Old Kirk Braddan Church, Saddle Road", Isle of Man government provides registration document for Registered Building No. 11 instead.
  • For RB108, DEFA website does not currently (April 2018) provide online registration documents for "8 Dwellings, numbered 5-9 Charles Street and 1-11 Queen Street", in Peel.
  • And for example amongst the 4, 6, 8, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, and 24 Finch Road items I believe there are some mistakes in which photos are included with which registration text. Review documents within other series ones too.
• organization "by parish", but not all are parishes, others are local authorities. Choose to reorganize by local authority. Due to amalgamation in Garff, if going by local authority areas, amalgamate Lonan, Laxey and Maughold as Garff (per this suggestion).
• coordinates: These are i think pretty good, given what i had to work with, but i took some small leaps of faith and there must be some small or large errors; it would be great if all could be checked by informed persons. Welcome to adopt & use themselves. Items which Wikipedia editors have not yet found:
  • thatched cottage in Surby
  • RB146 "Thurot Cottage Outbuildings and Gate, Hill Road", i can't see the outbuildings or gate, though did find RB135 Thurot Cottage itself.
• formerly listed items. Please make registration documents available; once notable always notable in Wikipedia; to some extent historic registries elsewhere provide continuing coverage. Relevant, of public interest, in regards to the history itself and to the facts/process of loss of historic resources and deregistration, which happens.
• demolished yet still listed, including RB264 "Royal British Legion Hall, Janet's Corner", appears to have been demolished.
• significantly modified / partly demolished items, e.g. 13 Athol Street where facade lost, e.g. RB45 "Garage, rear of "Clarksons", 1 Parliament Square", clearly modified. What modification documents are required, and could/should these be posted to update the registrations?
• instructions for photographs and documentation (Guidance on Undertaking Historic Building Photographic Surveys): request/require CC by SA copyright release of photos in new submissions.
• Some process for formal additional official documentation, as done eventually in U.S. NRHP system, where original registration documentation is scant. This provides for actual better fulfillment of the RB program mission, e.g. communication of the historic merit of sites, and avoidance of preservation without information. For example, to document what are any known facts, history of RB2 "Leodest Methodist Chapel, Leodest Road".

More later. --Doncram (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Agljones request

Hi, User:Agljones, I understand from your comments a year or more ago, and from recent tagging on this article, that you personally don't think that various structures at the RAF Jurby airfield are very important in the grand scheme of things. But they are listed Registered Buildings, so at least some Isle of Man persons think they are worth recognizing and preserving. I offer to you that I agree they probably don't each need a separate article, but IMO they warrant listing in this list-article and these deserve some coverage together in one combination article about the RAF airfield.

For some items, like "Pillbox at Field 211025", on Ballavaran Road, I can figure out exact coordinates and see the structures in Google street view (that one is at54.349793°N 4.524853°W / 54.349793; -4.524853 (Pillbox at Field 211025), you can click on the coords and select Google satellite view then drill in to Streetview). For another example, I can see the outline of the "Jurby Terminal Building" in Google satellite view and am confident about its coordinates and have included them into this list-article.

For another, "Pillbox at Field 214188, Ballamoar", which I think is at 54.352269°N 4.512584°W / 54.352269; -4.512584 (Pillbox at Field 214188, Ballamoar), I can drill down in Google satellite view but am not certain that a surviving structure there is the pillbox. The Isle of Man registration document for that one is at "Pillbox at Field 214188 Ballamoar Jurby Isle of Man" (PDF)..

Could you possibly please see your way to visiting these sites, and/or other Registered Buildings, and being the man on the spot to document their existence or not? It would be really great if you could photograph these and/or others in this list-article and contribute your photos under appropriate license at commons.wikimedia.org. sincerely, --Doncram (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

To User:Agljones, it would be nice if you could contribute anything factual like coordinates for a place, or any source about any assertion you make, such as about buildings at RAF Jurby. The discussion section titled "BRD Bold, Revert, Discuss" below, which includes some unsourced assertions about facts, does not appear to have anything actually helpful enough to lead to any change in this article. Too bad, you probably are in a position to contribute, oh well. --Doncram (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Santon Parish Church location?

Where is Santon Parish Church, "otherwise known as St. Sanctain's, Arragon Veg Road, in the parish of Santon"? Registration doc for Sandon Parish Church mentions "", and includes photos. At 54.100641°N 4.597560°W / 54.100641; -4.597560 is a building (possibly the church?) seen in Google satellite view near/on Arragon Mooar, Church Road, IM4 1HB, United Kingdom, the address of "John C. Taylor Ltd." The shape of the building looks okay, with a belfry at one end, but the satellite view does not show a graveyard and there is another building or two there which do not appear in the registration doc photos. In Google streetview, there is not imagery for this road, so I can't "drive down" the road and see. But in Google streetview here is a sign for "Arragon Mooar" at end of this road, at its intersection with Old Castletown Road. --Doncram (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I think I figured it out. The source mentions "Saddle Road" in an address, and I find that in Google maps, and then using Google Streetview I can see a church to one side. It appears to be at 54.161003°N 4.507010°W / 54.161003; -4.507010. --Doncram (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe not all settled. That points to the building I identified for "Old Kirk Braddan Church, Saddle Road". There is no source document available for this one. If it is a different church (could there be a mistaken duplication in the listings?), then one of the locations is incorrect. Help sorting this out would be appreciated. --Doncram (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Got it, it is at 54.108422°N 4.585653°W / 54.108422; -4.585653. This webpage included a pic and Grid Reference SC311712, and this page connected grid reference to a map. --Doncram (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

BRD; BOLD, revert, discuss cycle

No 241

{{geodata-check}}

BRD discussion cycle WP:BRD. The following coordinate fixes are needed for Pillbox at Field 214188, Ballamoar, RAF Jurby as templated by Wikipedia.

It is unclear if the building exists (actually a structure described by Wikipedia due to internal modifications WP:GEOROAD) and not a "canonical" listing WP:CSC and fail the process of independent nobility for a linked article WP:N. The coordianates are given for nearby building in the Ballamoar farm estate. —Agljones (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, maybe. Agljones removed coordinates previously in the article, i.e. 54.352269°N 4.512584°W / 54.352269; -4.512584 (Pillbox at Field 214188, Ballamoar (thought to be the location intended)), because they believe them to be incorrect. You could just correct them, instead.

And, um, it is pretty silly to keep using "BRD" or variations as titles of discussion sections in this and other Isle of Man related Talk pages. Whatever they want to communicate, it is not about the BRD process. --Doncram (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see, it seems that I interpreted the map included in the Isle of Man document for the site incorrectly. Consistent with the maps' usage of red to indicate the place(s) of interest (despite some of the maps being provided only in black and white, but this one is in color), I focused on one red-outlined shape in the map, apparently without noticing there is a different, smaller brighter-red-outlined shape (corresponding to structure at 54.353387°N 4.512758°W / 54.353387; -4.512758 (Pillbox location, corrected) in Google Satellite view). I concur that the second one is the better interpretation and will put that into the article now. Disagreeing about a coordinate in the article does not justify tagging the article overall with big negative tags (which I removed). Hmm, maybe this means that Agljones reviewed every other coordinate, and we can take them all as well confirmed now? Anyhow, thanks for helping get this one datum corrected. --Doncram (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, this is the RAF Jurby location which I asked about, in #Agljones request section above, because it was the one I most questioned, myself. Could have replied there. Thanks again, though, for taking a look at it. --Doncram (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

No 06/242 The editor concerned, either adding or restoring text should check the overall validity of all the map coordinates for the embedded list items before actually making the edit. The map coordinates are actually subject to same method of inline citations as for any other source (including Google Maps and Google Street view, Bing Maps & HM Ordnance Survey etc) WP:CITE. The map coordinates from the inline citations is saliently missing from this reverted edit [2] and fails the process of verification WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION. The map coordinates are also missing from the primary, self-published and questionable source (No 06/241) WP:NOTRELIABLE with WP:COPYVIO problems as the issues in the source country are broadly similar to US WP:COPYVIO. The burden of proof lies with any editor either adding of restoring text WP:BURDEN and editors should refer to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, guidelines and other essays for adding text.

Due to the lack of coordinates in these primary self-published sources, the current method of citation may suggest Original Research WP:OR and again synthesis of sources not permitted by Wikipedia WP:SYNTHESIS. Wikipedia describes for clarity that; “The presence of an object on a map is not sufficient by itself to show notability of a subject” and this point can be illustrated by the editor USER:doncram with this edit in respect to Google Maps [3].

Maps should be free of WP:COPYVIO and not be from self-published sources WP:V. Wikipedia describes that, as maps are primary sources WP:PRIMARY they should be used to find details consistent with their original use Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources ( ie No 06/241, No 117) which limits details that can be used. The registration document, again as a primary source, of the 27th November 2006 refers to “…buildings delineated on the plan…” and there are three or four “delineated” section on the plan and a number of other buildings. The process of “delineation” as suggested by the primary source is inconsistent with finding details “consistent” with their “ original” use on the map or abstract, again actually a “self-published” illustration. Wikipedia policy for primary sources is clear;- “ ....Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation....” WP:PRIMARY which is clearly absent from these edits for No 241 and also from No 117 as no comparison has been made with a secondary source WP:ANALYSIS, Wikipedia:No original research.

From the source dated the 27th November 2006, it is completely ambiguous what actual is building 06/241, where it is located and if the building currently exists or has been demolished Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Again, as shown with these edits [4], [5] & [6] in respect to No 117, there are quite obvious problems in the accuracy of the “delineated” section within the primary sources. In respect to 06/No 241, the “delineated” section without coordinates is clearly within the field boundary of the Ballamoar farm estate, whereas as the reverted edit [7] now indicates coordinates for an object within the field boundary of RAF Jurby which cannot be identified on Google Maps or other maps and fails the process of verification WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION (see other 06/No 241 map entries for comparison which actually may be seen by other editors as again Original Research WP:OR).

Summary for BRD. The cited sources, “....must clearly support the material as presented in the article...” (ie No 189, No 06/241) WP:BURDEN. It is not permitted to further summarise from other sources from other linked Wikipedia articles (eg No 117 WP:STICKTOSOURCE) without an existing citation in the linked article WP:SYNTHESIS). It is not permissible to quote Wikipedia as a source WP:COPYWITHIN (eg No 117) or summarize the primary source material other than as Wikipedia describes as; “….descriptive statements of facts….” WP:!TRUTHFINDERS), WP:PRIMARY (eg No 27, No 117, No 160, No 189, No 06/241 & No 264).Agljones (talk)19:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

By "No 06/242", I think you mean item 241.6 in this list-article, which is supported by this source about "Registered Building 06/000241".

Agljones, it is possible that a given structure has been demolished. Honestly i can't really tell if the structure exists in the Google satellite view. There appears to be a hexagonal shape there, perhaps with its roof covered by vegetation, or perhaps the building is gone and there is vegetation in the hexagonal form of the former structure. But since it is a somewhat-protected building, and it is not in a commercially useful spot, i don't understand why anyone would bother to demolish it, so my best guess based on the satellite imagery is that it still is there. You could contribute something positive if you could establish that a demolition has happened, perhaps by your getting an update about it from relevant authorities, or by your visiting the site and taking a photo which could be used as evidence. We are allowed to use photos contributed by ourselves. However, the coordinates which you deleted from the article (and which I have restored (54.353387°N 4.512758°W / 54.353387; -4.512758 (Pillbox at Field 214188, Ballamoar)) point to the location given in the source. I don't comprehend any objection to having them show in the list-article. It is where it is. There is no copyright violation. I can't comprehend your thinking there is a copyright violation!

I also don't understand if you mean to communicate any other objection in all that you wrote. But however much you dislike the Isle of Man's historic structures, or whatever is your motivation, it is not appropriate to tag-bomb the article with negative overall tags, which I removed again.

The repeated tag-bombing is bordering on vandalism on your part, in my opinion. --Doncram (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm copying my reply to Doncram's query about this topic at the Teahouse (I'm also deactivating the {{geodata-check}} template, since it doesn't seem to serve a useful purpose in this instance):

The question of the necessity for, and acceptable means of, sourcing coordinates is rather a vexed one, which has been discussed a number of times in different contexts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates (and I suppose elsewhere). The general consensus of editors seems to be that if Google Maps or some other mapping service clearly shows a feature at a certain location, the coordinates of that location can be given in an article without a need for further sourcing. For listed buildings in Great Britain, for instance, I frequently use the maps included at the bottom of the Historic England online list entries (like this one) to find the relevant location, then find the corresponding location on the Google satellite view in the GeoLocator tool and copy the coordinates into the article. I guess that in some sense this could be considered to constitute original research, but to my mind, and I think in the general opinion of editors, the Historic England page is a sufficient source for establishing the correct location.

In the specific case you're referring to—which I've been following because the OP at Talk:Registered Buildings of the Isle of Man#No 241 used the {{geodata-check}} template, and I monitor the maintenance category Category:Talk pages requiring geodata verification that the template adds—I think that the map included in the registration document, which is given as a reference in the relevant row of the table, is a perfectly adequate source for the coordinates of the structure in question (whether or not it's still in existence). The original poster there seems to be somewhat unreasonable.

—Deor (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The original geo-tag poster was for a quite plainly miss-identified building within the Ballamoar farm estate. There are two issue for No 06/241.2;- first the actual description and notability of the subject, if the building actually exists and second the issue of map coordinates.

The primary source does not contain map coordinates with three or four “delineated” sections which has led to the original miss-identification or show any actual building in the coordinates in the ‘delineated’ area shown by the coordinates in this edit [8] and fails the process of verification WP:V, WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION. This can be seen by this new photo of the 'delineated area' in the primary source and there is no building in the 'delineated' area which is heavily over-grown for correct identification and the on the ground GPS cordinates do not match the coordinates on Google Maps.

Wikipedia policy guideline is clear that the primary source has to be interpreted with a secondary source WP:PRIMARY which have to follow the normal process of independent verification WP:V . In the case given by the editor Deor the listing in English Heritage may have a secondary “neutral” independent source for identification. For 06/241.2 there may not be any secondary “neutral” independent source for…….identification, description, clarification or also for article independent notability WP:N.

Although, the editor Deor with this edit [9] has explained a common method of identifying buildings using Heritage England, the same editor has also considered that the method may also be original research WP:OR.

There are obvious problems with all the listing for RAF Jurby site. This includes various issues miss-identification from a set of self-published primary sources (actually an internal department procedure) from an official website that do not match their original reasons for listing in the register Wikipedia:No original research.Agljones (talk20:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess, for providing a photo of a field and hedgerow, though I don't think it proves anything relevant here. The photo is identified as being provided with permission of Ivory Tower inc / Northern Milk Marketing Board, so I take it you found this somewhere, and are not asserting you yourself walked the field and looked for the RAF pillbox structure, including poking into the bushes. The photo is not identified, but I assume you mean it is a photo of a corner of field 214188. It seems quite possible that it could even be a photo of the correct corner of that field, and also that the RAF structure is inside the bushes there.

I don't see any specific assertion that any set of coordinates is wrong, or that there is any descriptive text in the list-article that is wrong. About this item, there is no descriptive text in the list-article to dispute. There is just the title of the Isle of Man listing, i.e. "Pillbox at Field 214188, Ballamoar". Which is indisputably the name of the Isle of Man listing. Okay, nothing to do. --Doncram (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Information for other editors is that it is that the former RAF Jurby Aerodrome has no public access. The issue of an unidentified former “RAF building” in the hedgerows in this edit [10] may be largely irreverent as the hedgerow is north of the field-boundary of 214188 and inside the post-1963 former RAF Jurby aerodrome boundary. There may be at least two, three or more unidentified post-war buildings in the over-grown area in question of the former RAF Jurby airfield. All information on Wikipedia has to be verifiable WP:V rather than based on a “best guess” as ambiguously described by the editor USER:doncram in this edit [11]. Wikipedia policy is that a primary source such as 06/251.2 can only be analysed, evaluated or interpreted with a suitable ‘reliable’ secondary source WP:PRIMARY. This includes the name of the title of notice 06/251.2 which refers only to “buildings” [12] and not to “historic structures” or “historic sites.”

This second original photograph (not copied from another source under copyright;- editors should refer to actually wording of GNU declaration) does not show any building within field boundary of field 214188. The GPS coordinates as shown in this second original photograph for the corner of the field 214188 as shown in the photograph as 54° 21′ 12.14″ North, 4° 30′ 45.78″ West and not 54° 21′ 12.19″ North, 4° 30′ 45.93″ West as shown in these edits [13], [14] and these edits fails the process of verification required by Wikipedia. The burden of proof lies with any editor adding or restoring text to demonstrate verifiability WP:BURDEN with an inline citation from a reliable source WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION which includes the burden of proof with the contributing editor reviewing all the coordinate details with a secondary source.

Information for editors that they may like to consider this article and the note 1 [15] in reference to the GPS issues and using GPS map coordinates in Wikipedia. In comparison, the Ordnance Survey coordinates for the same north-east corner of field 218144 is 54° 21′ 12.4″ North, 4° 30′ 41.50″ West and again these edits [16], [17] fail the process of verification WP:V. This comparison of the original HM Ordnance Survey map with the Ordnance Survey map in the abstract in the source may be tentatively permitted by Wikipedia as it is consistent with each maps original use to locate the relative position in question (for the actual coordinates see below).

Again, the editor User:Deor with this edit [18] has demonstrated a common method of identifying the coordinates of a previously identified building using Heritage England and the same editor has also considered that the method may also be original research WP:OR. The method as shown in these edits [19], [20] has been used to actually try to “best guess” [21] an unknown location of a building. As with other internet sources WP:V, the normal inline citation WP:CITE process also applies to online maps which requires the map origin or cartography description and date the source was accessed which is not recorded in the two edits. This “best guess” may be completely inconsistent with the method as described by the editor User:Deor which in general relates to a building already formally identified and perhaps confirmed or evaluated with a secondary source WP:SECONDARY.

Other (non-Google) internet map resources with similar satellite image overlay show other marks on the ground in different locations including inside field 218144 which may suggest demolished buildings. This includes hexagonal marks on the ground in field 218144, which for example may be a non-directional DF station, VHF ground relay or perhaps a WW2 era pill box at 54° 21′ 11.9″ North, 4° 30′ 44.8″ West which are similar to marks of a former WW2 pillbox at RAF Andreas at 54° 22′ 31.5″ North, 4° 25′ 45.6″ West.

A summary for the BRD process is the name of the entry may refer to field 214188. However, this is from a self-published primary source WP:PRIMARY with overall issues of lack of editorial oversight, WP:COPYVIO problems and accuracy issues in the map abstracts without coordinates (ie again no 117) or problems with the descriptions for many of the RAF Jurby entries, (eg No 238. Jurby Aerodrome Bomb Store, Jurby Industrial Estate which actually shows an area of the post-1963 Jurby Aerodrome in the map abstract and not the industrial estate. [Why ?]: No 239 Jurby Terminal Building, Jurby Industrial Estate (Flight Annex only) [Why ?] Previous flight dispersal and “terminus building(s)” demolished).

This photograph [22] from the RAF Jurby article (from a source which is unclear of the commercial WP:COPYVIO status) shows in the background the northern boundary of field 214188 with the RAF Jurby Aerodrome built in the period 1938-1939. The photograph is labelled as 1942 and there is no building in the location as shown by the primary photograph source in this edit [23] by editor 42.226.189.160. Further photographs of the RAF Jurby Aerodrome, from the immediate post-war period (1945-1950) from Aero-Films (not linked to Wikipedia due to uncertainty of the commercial WP:COPYVIO limitations) do not show any buildings in field 214188.

The conclusion for the BRD process is that the building on 06/241.2 which cannot be correctly identified may be actually a misidentified post-war building in a different position or may have been demolished. If the building is post-war, then this may not qualify as having any “historic interest” compared to the other well defined WW2 era RAF Jurby Aerodrome “Pillboxes” built in the period 1937-1939 or 1942-1945.

This also demonstrates for the BRD process that the registration of buildings is an ‘internal administrative department process’ from a questionable WP:NOTRELIABLE, self-published website WP:SELFPUBLISH rather than being a “….governmental lists of historic sites….” as ambiguously described by the editor USER:doncram with this edit [24]. The various buildings of 06/241 listings that are located on private land (ie a third-party), they have only been registered due to their small internal size which do not normally require planning permission for demolition which demonstrates the ‘internal administrative department process ' (refer to signature on documents). In regard to 06/241.2, No 237, No 238, No 239 & No 240 the material is “unduly self-serving” from a self-published website as the department is the owner of the majority of the buildings. WP:ABOUTSELF. Agljones (talk)20:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I did try to read that. I perceive you have general antipathy about Isle of Man historic places, or about the official registry of them, and that may be too bad, but there are no actions to be taken here, as far as I can tell. When I try to read it again, you lose me in the second sentence: "The issue of an unidentified former “RAF building” in the hedgerows in this edit [25]...." To participate in Wikipedia discussions, you need to know what an edit difference is and how to link to one. Please see Help:Diff. What you linked to here is a version of this Talk page, not a specific edit. So I don't know what you are trying to refer to. Your point is to direct attention to something, but you failed. Oh well. --Doncram (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The editor USER:doncram has previously raised the issue of linking edits which is the exact opposite of the current complaint……By repeatedly raising minor or trivial issues in this BRD cycle WP:BRD, the editor USER:doncram may be seen by other editors as introducing spurious objections and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. This has previously led to a generalised warning for talk;page behaviour from another uninvolved editor.

Due to the editor USER:doncram making further ambiguous comments to 'heritage locations,' this may suggest that the same editor USER:doncram has been able to locate the linked edits or files and overall understood the comments and the summary required by the BRD cycle WP:BRD for 06/241.02.

The editor USER:doncram should direct the comments directly to the talk:page / BRD cycle and as the editor has previously suggested and not introduce ambiguous supplementary points, considering that the editor USER:doncram has previously has made historic contributions in respect to what is acceptable by Wikipedia as coordinate accuracy on other talk:pages (?) If the editor User:doncram with edit 16:23, 4 August 2018 does not understand the primary source 06/241.02 or the points made by user:Deor in respect to either coordinate accuracy or primary sources then source 06/241.02 is a breach of the Wikipedia:No original research policy as the burden of proof lies with any editor either adding or restoring material WP:BURDEN.

Unless the ambiguous reference to historic places by the editor USER:doncram is a tacit admission that the source 06/241.02 (as an ‘internal administrative procedure’ from an official, self-serving website for a non-historic post-1963 building ) requires to be substituted with a reference from a 'neutral' secondary source to be added to the article for the purposes of verification, interpretation and confirmation as saliently required by the Wikipedia guidelines WP:V, WP:PRIMARY  ? Also, for the BRD cycle summary, that the editor USER:doncram would also explain the meaning of “registered building consent” for purposes of verification WP:V in the source title quoted as “The Registered Buildings Regulations 2005” for 06/241.02, relative to the overtly ambiguous comments in respect to 'heritage locations' ? Agljones (talk)18:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

VHF radio / non-directional DF radio mast RAF Jurby

06/241.2 Post-1963 (?) non-“heritage building” (?) which is only listed due to its small size, it does not require planning permission to be demolished: it is unclear if the building exists as it does not appear on other lists of “registered” “buildings.” Contemporary Air Ministry photographs from the period 1937-1945 do not show a building in field 214188 and this photo may show a VHF radio / non-directional DF radio mast in the same field which would have required a nearby building with a power source as a ground station which may or may not account for the marks on the ground as discussed [this edit] of 20:24, 28 July 2018.

The summary for the BRD cycle is that any set of remaining or residual marks on the ground on Google Earth or Maps should not be considered automatically to be 06/241.2 and other hexangular marks on the ground may have also been a former electrical ground station, store or machine shop, revetment for the RAF Jurby station fire engine and crew or light AA establishment, which may suggest Original Research WP:OR. Or…...just a dummy pillbox (common RAF practice by painting marks on the ground.) Considering that it is in a position that it would be clipped by an aircraft wing (other known pillboxes are positioned away from taxi-ways) and also in a fire-zone blind-spot from the other known defined aerodrome defences and buildings which may suggest limited use as a contemporary WW2 RAF Jurby structure. Pillboxes are also very vulnerable to damage by light anti-tank weapons as shown by the airborne landings on Crete in 1942 and …….in April 1945, a Shorts Sunderland III flying-boat crashed landed at RAF Jurby near to field 214188 and after an engine fire, submarine depth-charges exploded badly damaging many RAF Jurby station buildings including the distant aircraft hangers.Agljones(talk)20:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Interesting perhaps. A tag calling for verification of the Registered Building status of "Pillbox at Field 214188, Ballamoar" was added, and I have removed it. See the Isle of Man's webpage on its Registered Buildings, cited in this article and Talk page. There is no doubt that it is listed. --Doncram (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

copyvio allegations?

Copyright infringement and the GNU Free Documentation License process is a very serious issue for Wikipedia. The uploaded image has embedded digital Metadata source details from a digital camera which confirms that it is an original image rather than copied from another source. The editor User:doncram and another editor have previously commented on these embedded Metadata digital camera source details in the uploaded form to confirm that they are original images.

If the editor User:doncram has specific evidence of infringement of copyright in respect to any image copied from the internet or other source the editor should present this evidence as shown by this edit [26]. Speculating in a general fashion by the editor User:doncram and repeatedly raising trivial and spurious objections, is showing to other editors and administrators that the editor USER:doncram may be seen as using stonewalling tactics, bad faith editing and gaming the system, particularly as the whole article is based on primary sources only.

Again, the editor USER:doncram has received a generalised warning for use of ‘laundry lists’ and talk:page behaviour from an uninvolved editor and a further second generalised warning for presenting the lack of any evidence from the same uninvolved editor. Agljones (talk)19:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

what the hell are you trying to say? Are you saying there are photos in this article which have copyright violations? I have no idea what you are trying to get at. Nothing to do here, as far as I can tell. —Doncram (talk) 23:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, are you trying to attack and discredit me, by referencing something about laundry? And because you think I am accusing you of copyright violation? You think Incorrectly. I see in your last edit you changed photos here in this talk page, to one that has nothing about any milk board, perhaps to try to clarify you did walk that field (I am guessing)? Okay, please just say, did you walk that field? If you did, you find an RAF structure? Or do you think none survives? Just say, if that is what you are trying to imply.—Doncram (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Agljones has again just now asserted, above, more copyvio allegations, including

The sources from the official directory-style website for the purposes of COPYVIO are considered "work in progress" as they contain documentary evidence, maps, photos, abstracts and text which are themselves have issues of copyright in compilation (this is the issue for No 117). The COPYVIO issue of "work in progress" is the same in the host country as in the US and linking material may be seen as COPYVIO (editors may refer to the US act Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1988 or perhaps 2000 for COPYVIO linking).

Umm, I simply don't follow what you are trying to get at, with respect to "work in progress". There is nothing wrong with citing Isle of Man's documents registratering of historic sites, as far as I know. I see no sentence or item or anything that is at all interpretable as a copyright violation. There is a copyvio noticeboard which can consider specific allegations of copyvio issues, which would garner "expert" judgments, and Agljones, you are welcome to raise an issue there. However I advise you to identify some specific text which you think is copyvio in any allegation you make there. --Doncram (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Violations of Wikipedia editing policies, guidelines, practices

In a number of edits here on the talk page and/or in the article, User:Agljones has, in my view, violated a number of formal Wikipedia policies and guidelines, or violated common and sensible editing practices. For the most part I have overlooked these, in interest of simply allowing / trying to facilitate genuine discussion on substance. However, this is also disruptive, and I am about fed up. Just now, I reverted their last edit, which for a second time deleted/moved material added by myself. Agljones, don't do that. If you want to re-enter your other comment within your edit (more about Kate's Cottage, a perennial favorite for dispute), go ahead. But if you delete or move my material again, I expect you will be reverted again by myself or another, and I am also inclined towards proceeding with dispute resolution procedures, likely a wp:ANI proceeding calling for you to be blocked or banned from editing here or in Wikipedia in general. --Doncram (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Related historic registries?

There are confusing statements within some of the above discussion sections which seem to assert that there are other historic registries which should be covered, perhaps as many as 6.

I already understand that Registered buildings are covered at Isle of Man government's webpage about its approximately 250 Registered Buildings.

I already understand that Conservation Areas are covered at Isle of Man's webpage about its 20 Conservation Areas, which appear to be like historic districts in other countries. Conservation Areas each include numerous individually listed Registered Buildings, plus other buildings.

What are registries 3, 4, 5, and 6, and, especially, what are corresponding sources? --Doncram (talk) 13:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I am now inclined to expand and retitle this list-article to be about "Registered Buildings and Conservations Areas of the Isle of Man", and to add in discussion of the 20 "Conservation Areas" which are equivalent to historic districts in other countries. Probably will cover them in a first section to be inserted, before the section on registered buildings, on basis that they are "bigger" / "more important" items.

User:Agljones, i would appreciate if you would clarify what other historic registries or similar official lists that you seemed to suggest existed, which should possibly also be mentioned or included. --Doncram (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

communication problems

I inserted a subsection header "communication problems" here. Agljones, it would be great if you would refrain from deleting this subsection header, meant to set aside some discussion about communication.

Anyhow, hmm, it's a bit absurd to blame the fact of discussion not really working upon my occasional tries to use meaningful section titles, in one of numerous sections opened by you, Agljones, titled "BRD" or small variations. With that section title, all of your comments are invalid, right? Because you are not discussing the BRD process, right? How about having discussions on one thing at a time, in discussions labelled properly about each topic to be discussed. Or, well, you can run on about BRD, I guess. Really this is not working for you to communicate anything to anyone. I am trying to comprehend what you want to get across, but I can't.

Another impediment to communication here, Agljones, is your failure to use diffs. You don't understand them, do you? In your latest comment, you refer to at edit 18:42, 19 August 2018. You were the editor of an edit at that time (not me, which you seem to be suggesting, above). You used the term "Registered Building Consent", not me. A diff for that would be this diff. You can compose such a diff by copy-pasting from the URL of the "differenced" versions of pages, and adding "[" before it, then following it by some text to label the diff such as "this diff", then "]". It would be great if you would try to compose a diff yourself. Perhaps you could make your comments more understandable to others.

Again, I really don't understand what you are driving at in your last comments, sorry. --Doncram (talk) 07:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Agljones, I am commenting here in this section titled "communication problems" because this is a separable issue, off-track from the ongoing discussion "Request for comments on Kate's Cottage coverage".

I do appreciate that, in this diff, you just made an effort to comply with my request for you to provide a diff or shut up (because it is a violation of Wikipedia policy/guidelines/practices) to a comment by editor Drmies. You linked to a Talk page section which is still appearing on your Talk page, however, you did not provide a diff. Simply pointing to a current Talk page section is inadequate for this purpose, because it doesn't prove who said what...you could have edited what text appears there, or what appeared before and provides context. Also the Talk page section may be deleted or selectively edited in the future, and what is required is an unchangeable, permanent diff. In this case your Talk page section is actually titled "Copied from Talk:Isle of Man TT" which suggests the possibility that you yourself might have copied it and selectively chose what you wanted to show and not. I don't know if Drmies' edit actually occurred on your Talk page or was on the Isle of Man TT page. It is absolutely your obligation to provide the actual diff so that others can see it in context and know that it is really what was written, and always forever be able to see that. It is not okay for you or anyone else to make serious negative allegations but foist it upon others to try to find the exact diff that is relevant.

This is a really basic thing: could you please please please provide an actual diff to Drmies' edit to your Talk page, or to the Isle of Man TT talk page if that is where it was made, which apparently was at time and date 15:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC).

If you do not understand what a diff is, at this point, or if you don't know how to find one efficiently (e.g. by use of external tools "Find addition/removal" or "Find edits by user" available under Revision history of any page) and if you cannot produce one when the situation requires, then I feel I have to say that it is impossible/unreasonable for other editors to have to deal with you. And it leads me towards requesting a ban or block to prevent you from participating in Wikipedia, on basis that you cannot communicate in the way required in any disagreement. I think bans or blocks that way are common, often as permanent measures rather than for a specified number of days or months or years, although often it is allowed that an editor may demonstrate that they understand and accept the requirement and appeal for return of their editing rights. It is still a big deal for a person to be blocked or banned, and will likely forever be used against you if it happens.

To be clear, right now I am asking you to provide that diff here in this section, to prove you can do it, and to allow this discussion here to be concluded. Please don't just provide the diff somewhere else, leaving others perhaps to look for it and find it. --Doncram (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Agljones, i see now that in two edits you edited in the #Request for comments on Kate's Cottage coverage section. In your edit you provide permalinks to various versions of Talk pages, but you did not provide any diffs. I don't know whether you think you provided the diff I requested (because perhaps you still do not know what a diff is?), or whether it was deliberate on your part to fail to do so. (Call that item 1.) I do take it as deliberate on your part to not reply here where I requested. Instead you are mixing in discussion of communication problems into that section which is supposed to be about Kate's Cottage. Are you being contrary now, and deliberately doing the opposite of anything requested of you? (Call that item 2)

Whatever is your intent, your failure to produce a diff is serious evidence about your inability to participate properly in Wikipedia. For what it's worth, my citing the "time and date 15:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)" is by me seeing that is what follows Drmies signature on your Talk page. But like I explained, in context it is ambiguous whether Drmies edited directly on your page or elsewhere (and then you or someone else copied it over, labelling it a copy). I could myself go and find the specific relevant diffs, but I asked you to do so. Are you not understanding the obligation for you to provide an actual diff that proves something, instead of leaving it to others to do what you should have done? Simply, you are not allowed to make negative allegations without providing relevant evidence in form of diffs.

Also, in those two edits you commit a different violation of guidelines/practices in communication, in that you edit your own comments after they had been replied to, in a way that misconstrues the conversation. It is usually okay to edit your own comment in a discussion if it has not yet been replied to, as if you are just fixing what you are saying. And after a comment has been replied to, it is sometimes okay to strike part or all that you said and to indicate replacement text, perhaps formatted in italics to indicate that it is an addition later, and to sign your own revision with your signature and time-stamp. So that others can follow. In this case, your editing does not indicate there is any change, and you left in the earlier time-stamp. You're not supposed to do that, you are supposed to cooperate in achieving discussion/communication, rather than acting in effect to undermine the following comments by other editors. (call this item 3) This action by you is pretty much equivalent to your directly editing someone else's comments, which you should not do, either.

So now I see three breaches of reasonable communication practices. I suggest that you reply here, and do provide the diff requested. Go and look up what a diff is, if you don't understand. And I would appreciate if you'd acknowledge your further mistakes in communication. And, if no one has further replied within that Kate's Cottage section, I suggest you revert your own two edits. I suggest you take this seriously. --Doncram (talk) 03:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)