Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Worcestershire

Main Worcestershire page

There has been a citation notice on the main county page since June 2012. I have spent a bit of time over the last couple of days going through the following parts - Local Government, Media and Anglo-Saxon. Which in some cases involved a complete rewrite, as well as adding citation links. I've worked on the opening section a bit as well, which appeared a bit vague. There are some sections which still require citations and/or maybe a bit weak in content. So I'm just wondering if anyone has got the time to have a look? Cheers! Bellow558 (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bellow558: Thanks for doing this. I did a big history rewrite on Worcestershire a few years back, to the extent it needed pairing back. That content is now at History of Worcestershire. It'd be great to keep these two pages synced, especially that there is less detail at Worcestershire#History than on the county history page, if that makes sense?

I've tried to take the same approach at History of Worcester and Worcester#History. --Jim Killock (talk) 07:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Parishes project

I have started a project for missing civil parishes at User:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes. The missing parishes in Worcestershire are:

• Drakes Broughton and Wadborough
• North Claines
• Norton and Lenchwick
• South Lenches
• Stanford with Orleton
• Stock and Bradley
• Stoke, Worcestershire, draft existed at Draft:Stoke, Worcestershire
• Westwood, Worcestershire

And these exists as a redirect only but should have separate articles:

• Astley and Dunley
• Bentley Pauncefoot
• Catshill and North Marlbrook
• Churchill and Blakedown
• Dodford with Grafton
• Kidderminster Foreign
• Lickey and Blackwell
• St Peter the Great County
• Shelsley Kings
• Wolverley and Cookley

A total of 18, see User:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes (3)#Worcestershire. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Malvern College

Malvern College has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposed county infobox template change

A discussion is ongoing at Template talk:Infobox English county#Proposal: remove the ethnicity section which is likely of interest to this project. The original proposal is for straight removal of the ethnicity field from the template; the population field would remain. This and a modified proposal would have the same effect on Worcestershire. A result of the change, if consented to, is the restriction of demographics, other than population to the local authority administrative sections of the county infoboxes. It has no effect on editors placing reliably sourced statistics in the body of the article 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)