Talk:Larkin 25

Article creation

I have started constructing this page to record data on the Larkin25/Larkin 25 Festival from June to December 2010. I hope the information is accurate. Any useful contributions and pictures appreciated.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

This is open for any contributors to add any relevant content and increase neutrality. It has not been produced by anyone involved in the festival and is not intended as a 'free promo', just for public information.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 13:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I have tweeked the header to separate the mixing in of event and Larkins details, to improve the readability and avoid some duplication of wording. Plus moved the dating in the key events ection to have the date at the start of each item, to show a chronological list of them. I've also added an infobox and uploaded a copy of the event poster (with a fair use rationale for the image, that can be used for this article only). Richard Harvey (talk) 09:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no personal or 'conflict of interest' in this copy. Of course, anyone is welcome to add and make suggestions if they are useful and informative.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I am updating with stories on educational role, etc. as they appear. Please add any others of relevance.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Major edits

Before making extensive edits and removing sections post on this page first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LarkinToad2010 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Why? I removed spam and improved the English. Nobody needs permission to edit.--J3Mrs (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You did not 'improve' anything. Stick to your own region and stop vandalising this article. The links are to established Hull sites and Facebook, a common domain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LarkinToad2010 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I said it on my page and I will say it here, Nobody needs permission to edit this page. I don't understand why you think they do. Facebook is spam, a blog and two links to a site in the infobox are NOT required.--J3Mrs (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The Larkin 25 facebook site is run by the festival and facebook is now often given priority over webpages for official corporate info. It's not spam, it's information. It's unhelpful to start removing sections and official links, it constitutes vandalism. The links are for quick access so don't keep chopping them.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what constitutes spam. I am not a vandal. The official site is linked in the infobox and only needs to be done once. I edited this page to improve the English and get rid of the spam. You appear to have ownership issues with this article.--J3Mrs (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You deleted the EL to the official site. That's a peculiar interpretation of spam. I'd have reverted your change myself, but was beaten to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

How many links in the article does it need? Are you reverting the spam?--J3Mrs (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The official site EL is worth listing twice: not everyone reading is familiar enough with WP layout to know that it would be in the infobox. We have sections called "External links" and many readers will, not unreasonably, look there. There's no reason (and policy is clear on this) that links may not be repeated if separated, even when they shouldn't be repeated if they're closely spaced within a section. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Before deleting "spam", I'd judge each link on its merits. Blanket removals are rarely a consistently good edit. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth it's used as a ref too. I suppose the rest are ok by you. If you look EL1 and EL4 are linked to the same site.--J3Mrs (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

LarkinToad2010 I have reverted the article to the last good edit by J3Mrs, with a few tweeks. This editor has a proven record of good article contributions and is merely raising your editing to a higher level of quality. Your comment "You did not 'improve' anything. Stick to your own region and stop vandalising this article" is quite offensive so be civil and do not accuse editors of Vandalism. As for "own Region" you appear to be getting on the ownership bandwagon. The external link thisisulllarkin25 is a blog website, which along with the facebook website is not permitted on wikipedia, as per Wikipedia:ELNO. Your current record of edits on other articles and resultant messages on their talkpages accusing other editors of vandalism, after correcting your edits, See:- [1] and use of anon IPs is unwelcome. Richard Harvey (talk) 07:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge to Philip Larkin

It is clear that this "Larkin 25" as an arts festival in the City of Kingston upon Hull is not getting any significant coverage outside the local area. What coverage that there is, is centred around Philip Larkin himself and not Larkin 25 the festival.

For example :

• Guardian : Hull to mark 25th anniversary of Larkin's death with giant model toad Only mentions of "Larkin 25" in relation to a credit for the artwork and in relation to a quote from Graham Chesters, chair of Larkin25.
• BBC News 2 February 2010  : No mention of Larkin 25 by name, a link provided and passing comment made in last paragraph "The unveiling of the statue on 2 December will form part of a series of commemorative events in Hull to mark the 25th anniversary of Larkin's death.
• www.metro.co.uk :Hull council spends £200,000 on toads - No mention of Larkin 25 at all.

all the other refs are to local sources.

As I see it, this page serves as a promotional page for a local event, that is not receiving any notice outside the area and NOT as an encyclopaedic article.

Rather than just listing it for WP:AfD, I am proposing that the details of the memorials be merged to a section on the Philip Larkin and this page act as a re-direct.

Codf1977 (talk) 08:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

So what if it's still a "local" event? That "local" is a moderately large city, not a village fete.

There's little enough happens in Hull, so it's hardly surprising they've tied it to Larkin. What else would they call it, Godberfest? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a notability issue, it is just not a notable event, have a read of WP:GEOSCOPE - this event is unlike to have a lasting effect outside the physical presence of the memorials. Even in Hull it is probably not going to be talked about after the event is over. Codf1977 (talk) 10:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:GEOSCOPE is simply inapplicable here (and very poorly worded too) - otherwise we'll be deleting everything from Hay Festival to cheese rolling. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Disagree - both the Hay Festival and cheese rolling both receive significant coverage nationally - for example SkyArts covers the Hay Festival. Codf1977 (talk) 11:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

So when the Grauniad writes, "Larkin's work will be celebrated in Hull this summer with a 10-week public art event.", that's not national coverage to the same level ? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

No it is not, it is one thing having a series of TV shows covering the annual Hay Festival to a one line comment covering a one off city festival. The WP:GNG spells out quite clearly what is ment by Significant coverage - "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Codf1977 (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

This is far from a "one line comment" though. The Graudina piece could be said to have two topics, toads and festival (if you don't see the toads as being the festival), but even that counts as the almighty "significant coverage of" in relation to either. This isn't just another generalist piece on Larkin, or a vague piece on "What's on in Hull", it's an article (not a one-liner) directly inspired by the toad+festival event and treated that as its main focus. That's coverage for our purposes. Perhaps it isn't a TV series, but then that's because it's a newspaper, not a TV listing. By itself (or with another similar, if we're being pedantic over the "multiple sources" aspect) that's a sufficient condition for our needs. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that it significant coverage of the event, it is coverage of how Hull is marking the 25th anniversary of the passing of Philip Larkin and should be merged with Philip Larkin as per WP:BEFORE it is not significant enough to warrant it's own article.Codf1977 (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

So you're so dismissive of Hull that you think the only arts happening they could ever have would be a dead poet society? There's more to a festival than Larkin, even in Hull. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

No I am not dismissive, I am looking at it from the point of the encyclopaedia - I am not passing any comment on the series of events as events, I can't see how this is notable enough for an encyclopaedia entry; with what ever test you use WP:GNG or WP:EVENT - and I don't think that you realy do either, otherwise you would be able to demonstrate it with really good and significant coverage, but that does not appear to exist. Codf1977 (talk) 14:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Guradian describes it as "a 10-week public art event", not "a Larkin memorial" or even "a 10-week public poetry event" (and Larkin had little to do with arts other than poetry/literature and jazz). They do also say that "[his] work will be celebrated", but that's an annotational description of what's going to happen at the event, not a definition of what the event is. I'm sure the inevitable Godber and Heaton will be celebrated too, but Larkin is quite clearly the strong theme of the event. A theme though doesn't mean that a broad-based arts festival is about nothing but Larkin, or that the festival exists only as a consequence of Larkin. Other stuff does happen in Hull as well. To justify merging this festival coverage under the Larkin article you would (IMHO) have to show that there was nothing else notable in the festival apart from Larkin. That would otherwise be a pretty biased dismissal of a festival, and indeed a city. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm opposed to a merge as I think it would be inappropriate. I also think there's enough to justify this article on its own.--Michig (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I feel the event is sufficiently notable in its own right to have an article. Many festivals start as a 'One off' event and then become an annual event. When it gets to the end of the festival period, in December, and the bronze statue of Larkin is unveiled in the Hull Paragon Interchange, assuming sufficient funding to pay for it is raised, there will be the opportunity to mention the statue in that article and refer to this article for the details about how the funding was obtained. However The festival details should be confined to this article and not duplicated out into other articles, loosely related to Philip Larkin. All that is required is a short teaser and the wikilink to this article for the details. Too many details in numerouse articles requires far to much updating, that will eventually get out of context. Richard Harvey (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose It would be premature to merge it now. Give it some time and see how it unfolds. There's a reasonable amount of information in the article already, and it will only increase. It's likely that within a few weeks there will be much too much to merge into the Larkin article. I think a case can be made for notability, as outlined in the discussion above. The Indpendent is another broadsheet which has covered it. --MoreThings (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Larkin 25 is a major cultural event in its own right, not a biographical detail

Larkin 25 has received widespread media coverage in The Times, Guardian, BBC and will continue to do so as it has only just launched. It is important that arts coverage outside London gains equal coverage in the media, as happened with the Liverpool08 Culture Festival. It also adds balance to the views of Hull as only a place of economic decline, benefit dependency and crime. Larkin is a major cultural figure, of recorded public popularity and therefore this article is of major cultural importance and should not be merged with the Philip Larkin entry. It is notable that most of the hostitility and vandalism to this topic is coming from outside Hull and East Riding. The entry has already been judged by editors as of significance in its own right so stop vandalising links and rewriting every other sentence unless it is helpful and informative (few such so far). Just rejoice at the news that the cultural scene in Hull is getting coverage and that readers will benefit from knowledge of this cultural event in its own entry, not buried in the sprawling P Larkin entry. PS Also NB that Larkin 25 is not the sole property of the Philip Larkin Society, an independent charity who are playing a part in running the event alongside public bodies such as Hull City Council and Hull Uni. Some seem determined to mislead readers into believing Larkin 25 is a 'PLS' event, it's not, it's a City of Hull-wide event. There seems to be a contingent determined to suppress knowledge of this event at every opportunity and ruin the article at every chance. It is a cultural event, paid for by UK tax-payer and open to all to participate. It is not a biographical detail and therefore only the very ignorant or those set on vandalism and 'tit for tat' changes would deem it so. The case for Larkin 25's fight for life has already been established. There is no alternative to it rising Phoenix-like at every attempt to suppress it.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me remind you that this is an Encyclopaedia, not a vehicle to give the "cultural scene in Hull .... coverage" or anything else, it is here to record matters of note. It is always telling when an editor in a discussion about an artical "plays the vandalism card like some over zealous World Cup referee" - rather than do that, please list the references that show that this has received significant coverage out side the what's on guides. Codf1977 (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The article has already been judged fit as an entry so it's a mystery why you're devoting so much time to trying to get rid of it. This, I fear, says it all about this site. The Larkin toads will be works of art in their own right and not just 'biographical detail'. The festival has a long way to run and so has this article with lots of updates that will be out of scale with the Larkin page.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Who has judged it fit ?

:::::How about this? "I'm opposed to a merge as I think it would be inappropriate. I also think there's enough to justify this article on its own.--Michig (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)"LarkinToad2010 (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

If significant coverage comes along later then (which I doubt) then the article can be revived then, but at the moment this art's event is not notiable, any claim it may be is pure speculation or hope by the organising committee. Codf1977 (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I've judged it fit for one, by my best objective assessment of the refs present thus far, according to WP:N and WP:RS. As part of the community of editors, I believe my opinion counts just as much as any other editor (or admin) does. I may of course be wrong, but that error should be pointable through policy. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, all constructive are welcome. I am trying to add more references as they appear but it's difficult to keep track of it all as one or two seem intent on getting rid of this article and burying it under some obscure sub-section. It has made it to The Times, Guardian, BBC's Today so it must be judged of national and international importance. I am bemused and dismayed at those with such a bee in their bonnet about this article (or should that be a toad?). The festival is not just about Larkin as such, it intersects with the Hull Literary and Jazz Festivals, drama events and national media coverage. That's why there's no case to delete it or put it under the PL entry.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Larkin 25 on BBC Radio 4's' Today' Programme

Just in case there any further doubt of the standing of the Larkin 25 events, it's made it to the BBC's flagship current affairs show, 'Today'.[2] Of course, it's already in The Times and Guardian.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism to Larkin 25 updates

A number of edits have been undone that offered links to specific topics and removed updates to facts regarding the event. That the launch of Larkin with Toads is being timed to coincide with the Clipper return is stated here and this certainly 'evidence' of this intention: here. It's very unhelpful that every attempt to update and refresh the page is being vandalised in this fashion. Unless there is an error or alternative reference, could you stop undoing the updates? I have trimmed the existing text to accommodate the refreshed information so it is less than helpful to keep restoring old stuff.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Be Civil to other editors and do not label edits that are done in Good Faith as Vandalism. You have already been warned about that previously by other editors with your disruptive editing on Kingston upon Hull by Andrewjlockley. You personally have a bad track record of Sockpuppetry, with multiple sock's here:- Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of LarkinToad2010, with blocks for Vandalism on this Sockpuppet:- 86.161.54.220, so please refrain from tarring other editors like yourself. Richard Harvey (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I have been very civil given that the allegations you allege on my account are 'suspected' and not grounded in fact as I have already explained that all of my edits are LarkinToad2010. The Hull article was way out of date and needed a good update and that's what it got and not before time. After all, no user 'owns' this community and all are free to edit, that's how its works. You have a record of over-zealous editing and altering edits here and then undoing it yourself. That there was 'no evidence' that the Toad event was timed to coincide with the Clipper return was false as the sources I cited confirm. I call 'vandalism' removing perfectly good data and taking out links as 'spam' when they're not whereas adding up-to-date information and providing updates (as with the Hull edits) is just what this community is all about. I've also had to put up with allegations of being a promoter of Larkin 25 and attempts to take the article down, despite being very much a public event. So just practice what you preach before making all these allegations and removing my edits all the time.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Flickr groups

I had already added a link to the 'official' Larkin Toad Flickr group. Could I suggest a limit on additional links to Flickr toad groups as these can be accessed once on the site. There is also no need to add 'what Flickr is' in the link as this is well-known and links only need short, to-the-point lablels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LarkinToad2010 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Footnotes use short non-template form

Can I suggest that users keep to the short format when contributing to this article? For instance, in referencing a newspaper, Author (optional) Name of Publication, Date of article, [Link to article with title of article], date retrieved. Corrections to typos and useful additions welcome but not this template thing as it makes the edit screen very cluttered and hard to navigate and there's no need for all this 'cryptic' information. And when footnoting papers, there' no need to put the publisher on the reference. The 'short', untemplated form is perfectly acceptable and the template is 'optional' as it states here LarkinToad2010 (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Footnotes should be in the standard format not in some specific format for this article. Keith D (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, Wikipedia should adopt the Harvard system as a universal standard and do away with footnotes for most references. They clutter too much and make editing hard work.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

There's an actual guideline, Wikipedia:Citing sources: any form of referencing is acceptable, including the Harvard, but once a format has been adopted it should be used consistently. Now that the article has been formatted with the cite template, it should not be changed--it just makes work. Just as my own opinion, the Harvard format is suitable for many articles on academic subjects, but our "cite" template, cumbersome as it is, does better for references comprising newspapers and website, like this article. There are various proposals for developing a unified system of referencing that will be less cumbersome. Myself, I like the Citizendium method, using subpages, but the leading proposal seems to be a references wiki similar to Commons. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Harvard is not perfect but preferable to these cumbersome and dated footnote templates.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 22:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

copyedit

I've begun a copyedit for conciseness, including the removal of extensive duplication between the various sections. I have a good deal more to go, including a try to reduce the number of references. The tense of the article is a problem--it may be necessary to rewrite a little once the festival is over. I put the appropriate "current" tag to alert readers. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

DGG, I reccomend setting up a WP:RFC. Promotional wording, overemphasis, and repetition are never appropriate, and certainly go against Wikipedia guidelines. BTW the tag needs to be restored, as this is an ongoing current event. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Trvia

This article seems to consist of a large amount of non-notable trivia. Alot of this should be removed as per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, and probably WP:PROMOTION. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Your acts of vandalism are unjustified and your comments about 'unreadable' sentences, etc. are nonesense. You are plainly seeking to disrupt and vandalise this established article which has already been judged fine by this community.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 07:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, I think the article should be merged into the Larkin biography article. The tags should be restored to the top of the page. I hate to be an echo but have your read WP:OWNER lately? Thanks for the feedback by the way. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 07:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No, keep off, that was suggested previously and it was established beyond doubt that it should NOT be merged with Larkin so you are just being a deliberate nuisance which I deem vandalism as you plainly trying trying to cause havoc.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 07:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Dispute re. "Take another look"

This is the tagline of the festival as you would know if you had bothered to read the content instead of making pedantic vandal edits. This is an arts festival, not a physics conference.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 07:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

OK great. But this needs to be described in more detail, because I did read the content and the meaning of "Take another look" was not clear. Also, in my opinion, it should be described so that the average reader (similar to me) can understand it. Presently, it kind of sounds like jargon. If a person is not present at the event, then he or she won't know what it means. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

"Trivia"

So, be aware that I know very well what you are doing, including raking up old disputes on this informative article that were resolved a long while back. Secondly, note that this is an article about a one-off arts festival in a city that doesn't usually get much positive coverage. There is no "trivia", is is information about a one-off British arts event that anybody researching the arts, social sciences, etc. might wish to know about. In the social sciences, the "trivia" of everyday life is known as evidence or on a site that claims to inform, fact.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 08:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Images

I have a set of images of the toads but because they are not classed as permanent they are not covered by Freedom of panorama rules and so are not valid to be loaded at Commons. I have tried e-mailing the organisation to see if they have any objections to us using them but have had no reply. If anyone who is up on our licensing and copyright situation that can point in the right direction then I may be able to get them loaded. Keith D (talk) 11:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If the Sculptures are located in premises open to the public IE on a public street or in a covered shopping Precinct then the photographical reproduction of this work is covered under British law (Section 62 of the Copyright, Designs and patents Act 1988), which states that it is not an infringement to take photographs of buildings, sculptures, models for buildings, or works of artistic craftsmanship permanently located in a public place or in premises open to the public. This does not apply to two-dimensional works such as posters or other flat artworks. See Commons:Freedom of Panorama#United Kingdom for more information. Copyright of the photographs themselves remains yours. When uploading add the commons licence template {{FoP-UK}} to the box marked 'Original source' after the template {{own}} . Richard Harvey (talk) 12:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I have already got there but the one word permanently is the problem as the toads are not permanent structures but only temporary. Keith D (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Many of the installations have been photographed for the Geograph project. As far as I know all Geograph images are acceptable on Wikipedia. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

In which case there should be no problem of loading them as we are able to use images from there. Keith D (talk) 11:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

After a somewhat traumatic bout of article wrecking (and more vandalism to the artwork), I am grateful for the restoration of the established pattern of this article, hope it stays that way for now. I am trying to stand back from Larkin 25 now a framework has been laid down and would welcome some fresh input and images. The tags and removals are not welcome and I hope they will not return.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 13:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Photos

The new photo is welcome and one or two more might be ideal if you have them.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a shame the recent trail of edits have again tried to bring down the information content of the article I started in good faith.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 13:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Blind edits

It would be helpful if users read the background and had some knowledge of the topic before making blind edits for the sake of making edits. The detail about one idea for Larkin's statue with a bike was because he was often seen riding his bike around town. Also, it is perfectly OK to use present tense for quotes from texts and articles.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

btw, I agree about the bicycle. It was his trademark. DGG ( talk ) 21:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

duplication

The section of excessive detail & duplication "Larkin 25 key events" has been removed; we do not normally include such sections. Please do not restore without consensus. The excessive use of the festival name has also been reduced--such use is normally taken as the hallmark of a promotional article. DGG ( talk ) 20:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Larkin2010 attempted to undo previous constructive edits, which add to the quality of the article. I reverted this edit as going against consensus, and for mischaracterizing previous edits, and an editor, in the edit history. Also, once again this user created a section (see below), which also mischaracterizes competent and effective editing as vandalism. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 07:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Larkin With Toads

Considering there is a separate article on the subject, the extensive section here seems unnecessary and should per WP:Summary style , be replaced by a short summary. I notice some of the detail here does not appear in that separate article , so it should be moved over to make it more complete.

There is another alternative: merging the two articles. Personally, I think it preferable, as it will make one strong article. But either way will do, as long as everything isn't said twice. DGG ( talk ) 21:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd support the merge. I was rather surprised to find they were ever separate. I was a strong advocate of having this article at all in its early days, when several editors were trying to remove it as a non-notable event, but even so, there are limits to how much coverage is justified. There's also a dilution effect - We would best serve the needs of the readers of this article by not requiring them to shift between two articles to get the whole picture. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• I also support a merge (as they stand, there is actually not that much to merge, most info is here already). --Crusio (talk) 00:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support merge - it makes sense. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
• I also support a merge to this article. The Larkin with Toads article header does state that it is a public art installation launched "as the centrepiece of the Larkin 25 festival". Richard Harvey (talk) 06:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• With only one dissenting voice (below), it looks like there is a reasonable consensus for merging. I propose to wait till tonight and if no more dissenting opinions come up, we should go ahead with the merge. --Crusio (talk) 08:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
• I agree. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 08:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
• I also agree. Richard Harvey (talk) 10:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Merge it they say the same thing, (over and over again)--92.40.106.208 (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• And a "thank you" for your helpful edits. I think there are still some more unnecessary/trivial details that could be weeded out. What is, for example, the importance of the fact that one of the statue designs which was not selected depicted Larkin on a bike? --Crusio (talk) 11:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• See the section above titled 'Blind edits', which gives the answer to that question. Richard Harvey (talk) 11:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Same old rubbish from the same old 'editors'. And one that dare not speak his name on the game.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 11:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• As far as I have seen here, you're absolutely not the one to throw stones to people editing anonymously... --Crusio (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support merge. There is some needless duplication and one article would be far better. Anyone searching for the one would be redirected to the other. pablo 19:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
• I think a consensus (albeit not unanimously) has been reached. If someone has time, whatever is salvageable from "Larking with Toads" should be incorporated here and that article should become a redirect to this one. --Crusio (talk) 07:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have redirected. There may be more information that could be merged over, still available in this version.  pablo 08:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have merged the articles, just as Pablo was redirecting the old article. Steve Quinn was also working on it, but I reckon we just managed to miss each other sufficiently. Now it just needs the inevitable tidying up. :) Richard Harvey (talk) 09:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

The series of incompetent edits have ruined this article and mistakes such as 'festival 25' betray a lack of respect and knowledge on the part of the 'editors' concerned. I deem this vandalism and an attempt to destroy the article. Larkin with Toads should not be merged until the Larkin 25 festival closes. It's the usual suspects and the incompetence of your edits betray your agenda of bringing this informative article to its knees.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 07:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC) The underhand edits you lot have done are riddled with typos and mistakes and therefore constitute vandalism.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 07:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• What do you mean with "Larkin with Toads should not be merged until the Larkin 25 festival closes"? Wikipedia is not a site to be used for announcements, it is used for information with durable value. See WP:WPNOT. In addition, there's a difference between edits with some typos in it and vandalism. Instead of yelling at "you lot", a more effective strategy for you would be to give rational arguments on why you think these two articles should not be merged, not just announcing it. By the way, I cannot find the typos that you are complaining about (I corrected one), nor can I find an occurrence of "festival 25". I must tell you that I have had it with your unfounded accusations an insults towards good faith editors and blatant disregard for policy and consensus. The next time you insult somebody, it will be taken to ANI. --Crusio (talk) 08:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You are simply not worth it. If you choose to ruin a good article with your friends, it's down to you. And now I see an anonymous spray canner is on the game. Why did I bother? Besides, the article has done the job and 'the festival' has proved a great success, no thanks to you.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 11:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• "The article did the job", so what you're saying is that all this was just to use Wikipedia for promotional goals? --Crusio (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• That's a nasty (and false) allegation. 'Done the job' means recorded the event for information, there was no 'promotion'. And surely against your much-repeated "good faith" code of conduct. So in my time, I'll be sorting out this false 'promotion' accusation along with the usual conspirators who have ganged up to ruin recent clean edits.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • You are accusing me of not assuming good faith???? I'm asking a question, prompted by what you said: the article has done the job, not the article is doing its job, which is what recording information would be about. --Crusio (talk) 13:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Polite to leave link to Larkin with Toads article

Despite the efforts of the anti-Larkin 25 lobby to take down Larkin with Toads, it would be polite (and good faith) to leave the wikilink to Larkin with Toads in the Larkin 25 article. It is still a viable article in its own right and a national art event discussed in the national media so it should not be deleted. It's a keep (as is Larkin 25).LarkinToad2010 (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Larkin statue

I have just carefully updated this section. And talking about the discussion page, in future users who want to make radical changes and delete links should practice what they preach and post here first.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Good editing

An anonymous IP came along today and did some really good copy editing. The anonymous IP is IP: 92.40.106.208. Thanks. Maybe this person is an editor by profession. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears another anonymous IP came along today, and accomplished some good copy editing, as well. This would be IP: 86.156.165.25. Thanks. Perhaps this person is also an editor by profession. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Sad:-(LarkinToad2010 (talk) 07:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that the article in its current form (refence time stamp on signature) is really good. The past/present tense problems have seemingly been cleared up, and the non-notable minor details that have plagued this article have been removed. I wonder if it would now qualify for "good article" status. I've never nominated one before, so I leave it open for community discussion. The Eskimo (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Neither have I, but we could see. One thing is that we should perhaps overhaul the references, but I'm not sure about that. As long as they're in a consistent format I think all will be fine. Perhaps another editor here has more experience with GA? --Crusio (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• I will ask another editor who I know has experience with GA to look this over for us. This way we can get an idea of what improvements need to be made. How does that sound? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• • excellent idea. --Crusio (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I second that. @Crusio- I also had some concerns about the references. I'll start by checking to see if they all pass wp:rs. I am pretty familiar with those guidelines. Will report back tomorrow.The Eskimo (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Great! ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    • OK I just requested that Ucucha take a look at this article on his talk page here.---- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think you ought to wait until the statue is in place?--86.156.159.128 (talk) 09:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Why? That has nothing to do with the quality of the article, as far as I see. --Crusio (talk) 10:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It's an ongoing event and the article won't be finished until then and is liable to change. Also the recent edit wars won't help at GA--86.156.159.128 (talk) 10:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Good points, especially the second one about the edit wars, if an article is not stable, it won't get to GA. --Crusio (talk) 10:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we may want to wait on GA for a bit. I went through the sources and, for the most part, they all seem legitimate and pass wp:rs...BUT I did see quite a few instances where the information in the source and the article didn't match. The first two sentences, for instance, include place names that are not found in the cited sources. I admit to not being very familiar with place-naming conventions in England. Perhaps someone could double check the first paragraph against the two cited sources and see if I'm missing something. The Eskimo (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Which names specifically concern you? I can check etc. but I wasn't sure which ones you meant :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The wording "... in the City of Kingston upon Hull and the East Riding of Yorkshire, England organised ... " is clumsy, I think some of the place names could be removed altogether. Maybe " ... based in and around Hull ... or something similar would be better.  pablo 15:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably "the East Riding of Yorkshire" can go, but I think it best to use Kingston upon Hull which is it's correct name (even though it's always shortened to Hull) and drop "the City". I'll do that now. (as a note: Kingston upon Hull is a "wierd case"; it essentially sits in its own micro-county [east riding], it's quite confusing :D) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It is a bit; bureaucrats have fiddled round with county boundaries so much over the years so there are historic counties, metropolitan counties, ceremonial counties, anomalies and horrors. Best to leave it out, I think. For more detail, people can click on the link to Kingston upon Hull.  pablo 16:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I added a third ref to the lead that gave the exact end-date of the event as being December 2. I also mentioned that the end-date marks the 25th anniversary of Larkin's death. I wonder if something about the unveiling of the stature should be mentined here, since the sources indicate that the unveiling is what all this is leading up to, and will be the culmination of the event? The Eskimo (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You can cut out too much!

Which you did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.159.128 (talk) 16:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite astounded by this "feeding frenzy" to get this article to GA. Larkin Toad deserves the credit for supplying the info and some recent edits are frankly awful, leaving no context! --86.156.159.128 (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

For example?The Eskimo (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The bits I put back in--86.156.159.128 (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, 86.156.159.128, you wouldn't actually be LarkinToad would you? I'm only asking due to the coincidence of timing and the sharing of ISP? Nancy ^talk 16:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I just like plain English.--86.156.159.128 (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your insistence that East Yorkshire be included. I admit to not being an expert of the geography of that region, but the sources don't mention East Yorkshire by name. I see where the WP entry for East Yorkshire says that Kingston Upon Hull is a separate unitary authority, and only ceremonially a part of East Yorkshire. That sound a little convoluted. Seems like the discussion a section above was leaning toward removing it. What is your case for keeping it?The Eskimo (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• This was something LT2010 edit warred about, too, so perhaps we're now dealing with a sockpuppet. --Crusio (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You read my mind. Quack quack as they say. Nancy ^talk 19:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Being a Yorkshireman perhaps I can clarify that problem for folks. Yorkshire is a Geographical area, originally divided into three parts, back in the days of the Vikings. These were called Thrydings or Ridings, hence the North, East and West Ridings of Yorkshire. In the late 70s local authorities were shaken up and the boundaries were altered a little and also a new 'South Yorkshire' came into being. Over the years there have been many reversions and name changes. However the original 'Ridings' boundaries still exist as 'Ceremonial Counties' and to all intents and purposes English folk and Yorkshire residents in particular, still recognise those. Also on a 'technical' level East Yorkshire wraps around the boundary of the 'Unitary Authority, with the River Humber to the south, of which the northern half is in East Yorkshire ;). So effectively Kingston upon Hull still remains 'inside' East Yorkshire. In the past considerable edit wars on Wiki have taken place over Yorkshires boundaries, long before LT2010 came on the scene, So its better to try and avoid a repetition of that. :) Richard Harvey (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Run an WP:SPI if you like. An admin should be able to judge it as a WP:DUCK, otherwise I reckon there is enough to warrant a checkuser. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 19:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Trouble is that LarkinToad's ISP is BT and he is on dynamically allocated IPs. Behavioural evidence is probably the best we'll get on this one. Let's see if the pattern continues here & if it does look like block evasion then I will extend LT's current block accordingly. I'm going to mark 86.156.159.128 as a suspected sock in the meantime. Nancy ^talk 19:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

If the IP's geolocate to to the same area a CU will mark it as "probable" etc. (just so you know, but that sounds like a sensible approach) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 20:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It's London. Same as all but one of the others Nancy ^talk 05:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Still on the First Paragraph

The last sentence of the first paragraph, the bit about funding for the festival, needs a ref. I have only found one that the festival will cost £500,000...but it does not really mention the source of funding. The Eskimo (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the last sentence (no refs) of the first paragraph, and replaced it with a sentence about how the festival will conclude with the unveiling of the statue. This accomplishes both getting rid of un-sourced material, as well as being able to delete the separate statue section all together and trim some fat from the article. The unveiling of the statue is what the entire festival is leading up to, and it should be in the lead somewhere. Also, the only thing lost from the separate section is that there was a selection process, which is trivial and pretty typical for public statues; the designer's name, and that the opinion of one of the sources that the Larkin statue will resemble another statue, which, though sourced, is still just an opinion. The Eskimo (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

If you are going for GA then you should be careful with the lead. If you load too much exclusive information in there (i.e info which is not subsequently expanded on later in the article) you will end up with something which is less a summary of the article and more a section in its own right. WP:LEAD has helpful advice and is what you will need to conform to in order to pass GA. Best, Nancy ^talk 19:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I see your point but I wonder if the entire article should have an overhaul if we are really going to go for GA in the future. I'm not sure this article knows what it is about, if you understand my meaning. Anyway, just being bold trying to improve things. I'm sure a consensus will wash out what goes where in the article. I'm just glad the editing process has become a cooperative effort. ThanksThe Eskimo (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Took your advice and trimmed it down a bit. have been making some rapid changes, so I will step back for a while and let others do there thing. A great weekend to all!The Eskimo (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• PS: Here are the three references regarding the statue info that is no longer pertinent in the article's current form (just in case someone wants to add the statue section back in:) The Eskimo (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

References

Statue

I don't understand why this was removed and so I put it back. It has been removed twice with no reasonable explanation, apart from my being an IP. Why on earth shouldn't it be here? I'd really like a good explanation.--86.160.76.224 (talk) 11:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not Larkin toad but you thinking i am is completely distorting your view of this article. It needs a section on the statue whatever you think but how many decent articles have you edited? I don't think you recognise what decent content is. Without the statue a major part of the festival is ignored, if it's in the lede it should be elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.76.224 (talk) 11:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I for one think your comments about 'Decent' articles is pretty similar to wording by LarkinToad2010! I also find it 'Curious' that you were able to go back through previous edits to find the deleted section, which indicates you knew it had previously existed and been deleted, to replace it. As for not understanding why the section was deleted then read the last two paragraphs and the subsequent links given in the section above by The Eskimo. Richard Harvey (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

well, I'm still not Larkin toad but read Eskimo's last edit above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.76.224 (talk) 12:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You say you are not LarkinToad but you and the rest of the 86.nnn BT anons marked as suspected socks of LT do have a remarkably coincidental penchant for editing the same group of articles and promoting the same agenda using the same language. Nancy ^talk 12:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

So what you are saying is it is not possible for an Ip to edit this article even if the IP makes perfectly valid edits.--86.160.76.224 (talk) 12:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. What I am saying is that anons who pop up from the same IP range as LarkinToad, with the same area(s) of interest, same editing style, same vocabulary, same attitude to other editors and the same agenda must expect those similarities to be picked up on. Nancy ^talk 13:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You think this "By late July 2010, The Hull Daily Mail reported that over 30,000 of the guides had been distributed. A marketing company was employed to cope with the high level of public interest." is notable but not a statue, can you explain why?--86.160.76.224 (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The point is, the consensus of this article has decided the matter regarding the statue. And the anonymous IP has been given ample feedback why this is the case. Hence, it is no longer necessary to keep arguing for the statue, while attempting to trivialize other edits or content in this article. It is fruitless. Also, just this stance alone is an indicator that this anonymous IP could very well be LarkinToad. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 14:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick look at today's editing history appears to indicate the same "edit warring" and "ownership" mentality of LarkinToad. I think this IP should be blocked based on all the recognizable indicators. Also further sanctions against LarkinToad may be appropriate. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 14:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Is every IP with an IP similar to LT is a suspected sockpuppet it is impossible for an IP to edit and I maintain I an not LT. For all Steve Quinn's bluster I am unable to find where it says the statue is inappropriate and that there is "Consensus", perhaps he could point me in the right direction. And yes I do see ownership by editors preventing IPs editing. I suggest you forget the sockpuppetry and try to explain in terms this IP can understand as to why the statue is not important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.76.224 (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

At first glance it appears (above) that an editor has provided three references in case someone wants to place the statue back in. The anonymous IP has asserted that without the statue a major part of the festival is ignored. Please explain here, how is this a major (and notable) part of the festival? What is its signifigance? Also, please explain first before attempting to place material about the statue into the article. I can imagine that it has been removed because of the promotional nature of the wording, or simply it appears to be trivial. If its not trivial, then please explain. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 18:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't delete the statue...I deleted the section and moved the pertinent information into the lead, basically just saying that the event will culminate with the unveiling of a statue on (whatever place; can't remember now) portraying Larkin hurrying to catch the train. A follow up sentence, mentioning that the first line of the poem would be inscribed on the statue, closed out the lead. I thought it important to mention the statue unveiling in the lead as that is that is what the entire event was leading up to, and what it would end with. Once I put that information into the lead, I noticed that the "statue" section pretty much repeated what was in the lead, and only added a few minor details that I deemed not important enough to justify a stand alone section.

When I left this article, it was not perfect by any means, but at least there were no grammatical errors and run on sentences as I see is now the case. I am going to redo the lead and delete the statue section for the following reasons:

1. The information about the statue should be in the lead, as that is what the entire event is leading up to.

2. Giving an entire section to the statue is repeating information, and is IMO wp:UNDUE.

3. The only info lost from the statue section is that:

A. That there was a contest to determine the statue's design, which is pretty commonplace for such a statue.

B. That the statue resembles another statue somewhere else, which, though sourced, is still just an opinion. (Once the statue is unveiled, I think a picture of it would do nicely to replace the current photo.) The Eskimo (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

GA possibilities

I've been asked to have a look how this article would do as a GA nominee. I think it's close, but there are a few possible problems:

• The article may not meet the stability criterion, as the festival is still ongoing.
• The article doesn't make clear how "Larkin's Jazz" is related to the festival, and the source does not explain it.

Ucucha 01:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

A Major Rewrite as of Below Timestamp

The Eskimo (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I just did a pretty major overhaul of this article, and would like to get a consensus one way or the other if the version as of the time stamp above is an improvement over previous version. Please comment and explain with support or not support The Eskimo (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Reads very well. Nice mix of successes and problems. Bmcln1 (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it reads very well, and the article gives good coverage of this event. I especially liked the lede, and the last section ("Reception"). The article shows that this festival did have some hurdles to overcome in order to make it a success. If I see any details that need fixin' I will let you know. Good job, and thanks for taking this on. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The first paragraph is supposed to summarise the article which it doesn't. It should have a reference to the statue in the body of the article. It is not an improvement. --86.156.75.77 (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I came to mention the lead but looks like the IP beat me to it. The lead should not have in it anything that is not detailed in the rest of the article. The info on the statue is not in the remainder of the article so it need to occur somewhere else in the body of the article and the references removed from the lead. Keith D (talk) 23:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I was going to mention that fact about the statue. Since it is not in the body, it need not be mentioned in the lede. However, given the explanation about the statue (above), that any other material appeared to be redundant, I figure let it stay in the lede. Perhaps there is not a lot of notable material pertaining to the statue. Also, refs in the lede are optional, there is no requirement that the refs be removed from the lede, and vice versa. It is a matter of convention, true. The refs would be needed if there is a possibility the material will be challenged per WP:V. But I am sure either way is acceptable, in this case. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• KeithD is right that there should not be any refs in the lead. If there's not much to the statue, then mention it somewhere in the article. Perhaps just end the lead with "...of a statue" and then put the rest with the refs as a subsection under "Festival overview", just before "reception". Apart from that, looks like this (finally...) became a very nice article. It's ironical that LarkinToad had to leave first for that to be possible, even though the whole article would not exist without him. Really too bad he could not get himself to believe that others were actually trying to help, not vandalize... --Crusio (talk) 08:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The article is now much more readable and to the point, with no excess trivia. I have reduced some further clutter by removing duplicated wikilinks and tidied the editing readability by making the cited refs consistent in layout, plus deleted a redundant category. As for the statue I feel that it should be mentioned in the lede as the event culminates in the unveiling of it. Richard Harvey (talk) 09:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I was not suggesting removing all details of the statue from the lead, but that it needs the information covered elsewhere in addition to the mention in the lead. Keith D (talk) 11:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

A sentence about the statue, and maybe the guy who designed it, could be plugged into the festival overview section, and that would clear things up without being excessive. I will let someone else do this as I have aready been pretty heavy handed in changing the article is the last 24 hours. The Eskimo (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Having refs in the lede or not is a matter of opinion, unless the material is challenged. There is no hard fast rule about this. Saying "should not have", or "should not be" sounds like some sort of rule to me, and this is not the case. And I don't understand the inflexibility of a small blurb about the statue only in the lede. I thought this was a good strategy. So someone went ahead and changed these without further discussion, which I don't appreciate. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• (unindent) Steve, I'm afraid that was me, I apparently misread the consensus here about the statue and went ahead. And you're absolutely right about the references in the lead (see WP:LEADCITE). I don't know where I got it that citations are undesirable in the lead, perhaps I saw it sometime at a good article discussion, I really don't remember. Anyway, sorry about being too bold. Apologies if I irked you with that. It's easy to revert, though, if consensus would go the other way. --Crusio (talk) 07:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• As it happens, this weeks Signpost has some remarks about references in leads. I knew I didn't dream it up, but it is indeed not a hard rule. --Crusio (talk) 07:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Moving Forward

I think the article looks pretty good in its current state, changes to the lede an all. Anyone see any glaring problems? If not, what's next? The Eskimo (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The first thing I would fix is the insane number of refs used for two of the sentences. See WP:CLUTTER for details (I would drop as many as possible and collapse what's left) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I have collapsed them as suggested, though looks funny in the ref list. Prefer the bullet list to the run-on method. Keith D (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Essential archival updates

The article has now been archived with essential final details which are not to be removed. Thanks to all the positive readers who looked in but no thanks to those who caused so much hassle in getting this heritage event recorded here and ruined the orignal layout. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.243.76 - AKA LarkinToad2010 (talk) 08:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

"...with essential final details which are not to be removed."

Well, we have recieved our final orders from Larkin Toad. All I can say is "yes sir!", with a salute. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 09:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

So LarkinToad2010 is back editing with a sockpuppet, after his previous block for the same actions. I note he is already using it for vandalism and disruptive editing. See his new sock's:- Talkpage. Richard Harvey (talk) 10:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No vandalism and no need for Larkin Toad now that the job is done. And no thanks to you. I don't have to log in for minor edits as you know perfectly well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.33.23 - AKA LarkinToad2010 (talk) 11:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• I know perfectly well you do have to log in for 'Minor edits' as per Help:Minor edit. Quote:- "Users who are not logged in to Wikipedia are not permitted to mark changes as minor because of the potential for vandalism. The ability to mark changes as minor is one of many reasons to register." Additionally note that a check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous versions. Examples include typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearrangement of text without modification of content, etc." Your edits do not fall within that remit! Continuing to act in the same way that resulted in your temporary editing block may result in getting yourself a permanent ban on editing! Richard Harvey (talk) 11:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

WTD? Is the article protected? I don't see any indication of the article being archived, and just made a few changes myself to the "Reception" section (and am eying a possible adjustment or two regarding the statue). What is the anon talking about? The Eskimo (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

And I have undone your edits, they did not improve the article.--J3Mrs (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The reason I undid it is because you reintroduced the tedious repetition that I spent ages removing. Expenditure not expenditures!--J3Mrs (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining exactly what you mean by "tedious repetition?" That's not a very informative explanation. The Eskimo (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• sponsorships "for the toad sculptures" what else would it be for?
• "There was speculation" too many unnecessary and redundant words
• "following the closing of the event" again not necessary

The idea is to use as few words as possible not keep adding the obvious.--J3Mrs (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I will concede that your above points have merit, and it is not worth dispute if you feel strongly that the version you reverted back to is better. But I am not sure a total revert of my changes were in order. That section is a series of un-punctuated independent clauses and compound sentences. There is not a single comma in the entire section. The Eskimo (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, the rapid reversion of my edits make me wonder if you actually took the time to look at all of my edits, or just blindly reverted when you saw something you didn't like. I will AGF that is not the case. The Eskimo (talk) 00:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Please punctuate it. I find the whole thing over referenced and it is difficult to see the wood from the trees. If you look at the ttrimming I have done today you may see why I am reluctant to see it start expanding in that way.--J3Mrs (talk) 00:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

For your information I ALWAYS read what I revert and I will AGF and assume you didn't think I hadn't read it.--J3Mrs (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Touche'. My apologies for the veiled insinuation. Agreed that the entire article (especially the lead) is over-sourced. This article has been subject to repeated and overt WP:OWN issues in the past, and perhaps that has put me in an overly defensive position in this discussion. I will sit back and "see what happens" through the night here in the States. Cheers! The Eskimo (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Image

I'd like to get rid of the black & white image, it's in the Larkin article and not relevant here. I presume a photograph of the sculpure will eventually replace it.--J3Mrs (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I support replacing the black and white photo with one of the statue as a needed improvement to the article. The Eskimo (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I may be able to get an image over the Christmas/New Year break if the weather permits. Keith D (talk) 12:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of removong that image this morning, as it does not inprove the article and can be easily seen on the linked Philip Larkin article. So I will remove it now, seeing as others feel the same way. Richard Harvey (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like there is already an image on the Geograph project. I have transferred it to Commons File:Philip Larkin Statue Hull.jpg for you to use as required. Keith D (talk) 00:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on that Keith. Due to relevancy I have also added it to the Hull Paragon Interchange and Phillip Larkin articles, where the statue is mentioned. Richard Harvey (talk) 01:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Statue Section: seeking input & establishing consensus

I'd like to establish some consensus here about the statue section. It seems overly lengthy and minutely detailed in comparison to the rest of the article. Do others agree? Should the section be trimmed down, or merged with the festival section, or left as is, or something else? The Eskimo (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The article should have the statue section, it is a major work and the festival finale. The section is nowhere near as detailed as it was but I can see some places where the ceremony could be trimmed, which I have just done.--J3Mrs (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Have to agree that the section should be present. May be the other sections need to be expanded to balance the article rather than trimming out detail. Keith D (talk) 12:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Larkin 25. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120503101809/http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/Toads-finishing-touches-hop-place-streets-Hull/story-11972100-detail/story.html to http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/news/Toads-finishing-touches-hop-place-streets-Hull/article-2407474-detail/article.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC)