Talk:Malvern water/Archive 1

Archive 1

Article Criticism

Wiki user:headbomb has placed a POV tag on this article without leaving a required explanation. Thios article concerns a subject that is part of England's national heritage and does not in anyway constitute an advertisement. (See Perrier, Vittel, and the categories). Support for Malvern Water (see article) is funded by official organisations, and can be obtain free in the area as well as being commercially distributed as a notable mineral water.
If no further comment from the editor is made here within the next seven days the POV tag will be removed.Kudpung (talk) 02:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

POV/Weasel (per request)

Well, there's nothing specific per se, but finding passages like "Queen Elizabeth I made a point of drinking it in public in the 16th century, and Queen Victoria refused to travel without it." in the lead strikes me as a sales pitch for people who are in awe of England's royalty. And things like quotes from the 17th and 18th century to establish the particular purity of the Malvern water and near assertions of miraculous healing properties strikes me as odd. It's as if you were reading a book about mushrooms, but the book was more concerned to report what people thought of mushrooms than actually discussing mushrooms. It's not necessarily that the Queens' love of the Malvern water should not be noted in this article, it's that the emphasis seems disproportionate with the relevance, and disproportionate emphasises are usually signs of non-neutrality. Headbomb {^{τたうαあるふぁλらむだκかっぱ}_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 02:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply. I have rewritten the intro and added more references to the alleged curative properties, and moved emphasis away from the Royals. As you say yourself however, there's nothing specific per se, and if you had read on, you will see that the article includes a mention of how the purity (not the medicinal properties, of which pure water can of course have none) has been subject to constant scientific analysis, and is even currently disputed. The 16th, and 17th century quotes are merely to illustrate that Malvern water is not a recent phenomenon, and was around rather a long time before Schweppes had anything to do with it! You can rest assured that I have no interest whatsoever in promoting either the commercially bottled water, or the Royal Family, and have connections with neither.
I have invited the opinions of the other members of the Worcestershire project, and other Wikipedians, so please do not negate the value of this article until their comments are posted and they have had the opportunity to make suggestions for improvement Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 04:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Look, I'm an American, but I think concern about "people who are in awe of England's royalty" is bogus, given how few really are. I have a friend in Wales who avers they are kept on only for their entertainment value and, yes, to promote tourism as they do put on a good show, but, no, not to promote mineral water. It is, however, appropriate to include historical cases when people were in awe of England's royalty and merchants were positively delighted to have Royalty promote it -- there is even a formerly prized label for that purpose, but today only of interest to those interested in quaint customs of the past. As to the charge of "promoting" it in the the article as written, I cannot be neutral as I was similarly charged when I tried to include Home brew sato kits in the main article on Sato (rice wine). Pawyilee (talk) 08:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right of course about the clout that a royal 'Appointment' carries for a product, and of course also for the local economy that goes with it. And yes, I agree with you entirely on the actual lack of 'awe'. In Britain, being a monarchy, many things are called 'Royal this', and 'Royal that', - it's almost inescapable. The new one is the Queen's Award to Industry. In Britain, people tend to associate 'Royal' in these contexts as something official - which the equivalent in a republic would be. I'm sure that in America some products were made famous because a president used them, and without doing research, I would not be surprised if the fact were mentioned in the articles about the products. Personally, I would not have edited out your mention that sato is also available in kit form for home brewers. Supermarkets even sell frozen ready-made dough for people to bake their bread at a home. Where you might mention several brands of homebrew kits, that shows no preference for one or the other. However, Malvern Water is,IMO, a special case, as Schweppes were the first to bottle the stuff 150 years ago, still do, and are the only firm to do it. Schweppes has its own Wiki article, so some consider it notable enough for an encyclopedia, and as such, I consider its connection with Malvern Water to be of utmost importance. However, I'm perfectly happy to go with a general consensus. --Kudpung (talk) 09:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Headbomb. I'm quite convinced Malvern Water is notable enough to appear in Wikipedia. Without it (the water), Malvern would probably have remained a collection of small villages, rather than growing to the town it is today. As noted in the article, Malvern Water was a famous treatment in its day. Its links to the Royal family are recorded facts. It is worth mentioning in the article because is provides an unlikely link between the Royal family and a small town, rather than any expectation that it makes the water taste better. I don't think Schweppes will see a sudden peak in sales from this article.

Rather than adding a drive-by NPOV banner, it would be more constructive if you could explain why you are unhappy with this article, and maybe even edit it to fix. This is, y'know, a wiki. I quick look at the article history would tell you that this is a new page. Suggestions from other editors are always helpful. GyroMagician (talk) 10:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Headbomb has kindly removed the POV tag. Debate concluded. --Kudpung (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I removed it, it was a stupid tagging. Jenuk1985 | Talk 10:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I realise that now after looking at the log. Thanks :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kudpung (talk • contribs) 07:51, 31 May 2009

Replies: A couple of things, first throwing accusations of "stupid tagging" are rather dickish and completely unnecessary, so if we could move away from that, we'd all be better off. Second, I did provide a rational for the tags (once requested). If you must know why I didn't add the rational the first time around, it's because these were drive-by taggings. I monitor Newly created articles for several projects, so I'm reviewing about 100-200 new articles per day. I've added the tags, and I thought they were self-evident, which turned out to be wrong. I'll admit that the POV/Weasel tags are not the most appropriate for what I'm trying to say, but they are the closest ones.

By my comment "in awe of England's royalty", I don't mean the hardcore crazies who have wallpapers of Queen Elizabeth II, who carry pictures of Prince Charles in their wallets, and who would like to see a Wikipedia article dedicated to each of the shaven hair of the legs of Princess of Wales' (or Duchess of Cornwall, if that's what you prefer), although they are certainly included in my remarks. I'm reffering to Kudpung's remark of "Royal Appointment" and the obvious differences in the marketing value of "Royal Butter" compared to "Pikey Butter".

And again, I'm not saying that the Royalty's love of the damned thing ain't notable, I'm just saying that it's given undue weight, and that endorsements are given more emphasis than they should be in an article of encyclopedic nature. Compare these two (hypothetical) leads:

• Lead:The Malvern Water is a water of extreme purity, purity so high the Queen A refuses to travel without it, and that Queen B categorically refused to drink anything else. It was also renowned to have curative properties according to Dr C, and was granted grade Superduper until X, when it was downgraded to X-1. The water source is found in the town of Malvern, Worcestershire.
• Lead: The Malvern Water is the natural spring water found in the town of Malvern, Worcestershire.^[1] It is renowned for it's high-purity ^[2][3] (currently rated X-1 grade,^[4] although it was rated higher in the past^[5]). The Malvern Water was made famous in the mid 19th century, when Dr. James Manby Gully claimed it had curative properties.^[6] Over the years, the Malvern Water enjoyed many forms of royal endorsements and other marks of prestige,^[7][8][9] and has played a key role in Malvern's economy and in England's national heritage. ^[10]

The former is not what I call written from a neutral point of view. I hope this clarifies the nature of my concerns. Headbomb {^{τたうαあるふぁλらむだκかっぱ}_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 14:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't clarify a thing really. I think if you really still have an issue with it, rewrite it per WP:SOFIXIT. Jenuk1985 | Talk 14:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Stop removing tags for issues that aren't yet solved, and please stop misrepresenting my actions. You're being unecessarily divise here. Headbomb {^{τたうαあるふぁλらむだκかっぱ}_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

If there are any further additions of tags that don't apply, I shall take the issue to WP:ANI as disruptive behaviour. The article is written neutrally, and there are no weasel words. Either use more appropriate tags, or don't tag at all. To quote what you written earlier "I'll admit that the POV/Weasel tags are not the most appropriate for what I'm trying to say" - Then don't use them, simple! Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

So we now have a new tag applied, "An editor has expressed a concern that this article lends undue weight to certain ideas relative to the article as a whole. Please help to discuss and resolve the dispute before removing this message." - Not entirely sure what this one is implying, a single sentence regarding the royal connections in the entire article is hardly giving undue weight. Sounds like another inappropriate tag to me, I'll leave it up for discussion for a while first though. Jenuk1985 | Talk 01:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Because of this, it has already been suggested to me by admin that indiscriminate tagging is a serious issue and could led to withdrawal of an adminitrator's privileges. It is quite obvious throughout the WP that some editors tag like mad and look for issues and typos in order to increase their edit counts and brownie points.

By 'reviewing about 100-200 new articles per day' it is clearly impossible to read the entire content of an article and be objective, and defeats the purpose of WP's system of privileged editors. There is sufficient consensus against Headbomb's tagging, and IMO he is now just trying to make feeble excuses to justify his actions. I too will wait for more comment from others, failing which, I also vote for going to WP:ANI. --Kudpung (talk) 04:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

What the hell is this all this bad faith ANI crap? Seriously, I come here, tag an article for POV/Weasel, explain upon request, am willing to work with you and I have to spend half of my time to justify every single letter of everything I write under threats of administrative intervention, am belittled as some kind of guy whose only goal in life is to get a bigger edit count than everyone else, and relegated to some sort of 2nd class editor. Now could we please get back to improving the article rather than wasting everyone's time on petty wikilawyring? Headbomb {^{τたうαあるふぁλらむだκかっぱ}_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there a tag for 'please go away and let us get on with what we were doing'?. The reason we are so annoyed is that you resist giving us any help, while throwing out apparently random tags. I genuinely have no idea what your problem with the article is. If you would tell us what you have a problem with, or even try editing the article yourself, I would take the time to listen. I have edited the article, guessing at what you might be trying to tell us. You swapped one tagging for another, without any comment. I think you misunderstand tagging (or maybe I do?). My understanding is that it is the responsibility of the tagger to start a discussion on the talk page and explain why the tag was applied. We need something solid here, not some ramble about mushrooms. Kudpung has written an excellent, well referenced, starter article. Your input, so far, has been a gallery of tags. As others have suggested, rather than reviewing 100-200 articles too quickly (and annoying all those editors), why not review 10 articles carefully? It would be a bigger contribution.

Let's address the article. I tried to separate the intro into a brief factual statement about the water itself, and then to put the water cure information in chronological order. I think the article would be improved if we have a very brief statement about the water cure in the intro, and then move most of that information to its own section below. I am not sure what to do with the Royal line - maybe it will fit better into the reduced intro I am suggesting? It does not seem to sit easily in a Water Cure section, and is too small to justify its own section. But it should certainly be mentioned, before anyone deletes it! This is only my suggestion - if anyone has a better idea, I'm interested. For the record, I disagree with the current tag also.

BTW, For the unwarey, the wikilink water cure is a page about water torture. Maybe some of Malvern's Victorian visitors would think this appropriate, but it's probably not the page we want ;-) GyroMagician (talk) 07:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Now that's something patently absurd. I came here, point out issues, and I'm greeted with the biggest wave of bad faith I've ever seen on Wikipedia, accusations that I'm some two-chump Tom who's goal is to get a bigger edit count, that I'm incompetent, that my reviews are rushed, and so on. I tagged the article on the 25th, thinking it was clear. I was wrong, and clarified. So I tagged it again on the 31st, clarified what I meant, expressed my willingness to help, and you're all "go away you're a nuisance who's only goal is to piss us off". Since the clarification, I've essentially been given less than 24 hours to fix an article, most of which had to spend on this talk page arguing about petty remarks and justification for the tags. That's not a very good climate for collaboration, nor a lot of time to do something about the article. {{undue}} writes "An editor has expressed a concern that this article lends undue weight to certain ideas relative to the article as a whole.", not "This article lends undue weight to certain ideas relative to the article as a whole, and if you disagree you are a moron". I'll let you restore the tag. If it's there when I come back, I'll assume it means you'll want to improve the article. If not, I'll leave you alone, as I have better things to do with my time than being insulted at some ungodly rate. Headbomb {^{τたうαあるふぁλらむだκかっぱ}_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 12:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Fly-past editings

I think the article is brilliant since Gyro's latest edits, and although only short as articles go, it is almost GA quality. I have given Headache a very polite but concise opinion of his work on his User talk:Headbomb#Malvern_Water page that no one can argue with, and removed the latest from his repertoire of ready-to-paste banners. If he disrupts anything again, or can't communicate in a mature manner, or pastes another different tag to avoid the 3RR rule I'll go to arbitration. Making up totally exaggerated 'hypothetical' examples for comparison of what he thinks should appear, is not constructive criticism and is a waste of Wikipedians' time. A quick look at Headbomb's archives will reveal that it's not the first time he's had issues with his rapid interventions. --Kudpung (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

User Dubmill has flown past and done a thorough, excellent copy edit of the whole article. It probably took some time. I have thanked him/her on their talk page.--Kudpung (talk) 06:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Barnards Green Trough

Deletion OK. I'll have a look at the trough when I'm back home in Barnards Green in August.--Kudpung (talk) 09:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Malvern water in medicine

I have moved this out of the intro to its own section in order to draw focus away from any reader assuming that this article is more about water cures. Feel free to revert or re edit as appropriate. The link to the correct water cure page (not the torture) has been fixed, and a disambig suggestion made to the authors of those pages.--Kudpung (talk) 07:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, I like it. The intro is about the right length now. If we find a couple of pictures, I think the page is just about finished. I would suggest we need a photo of a bottle of Schweppes water (it would be nice to have a modern and an old one - maybe Malvern Museum could help us?), and a photo of Malvhina on Belle Vue (maybe we should contact the owner of this one). I've also noticed that other water pages (e.g. Evian) include an info box, but I don't see how that fits with this page - it would put too much emphasis on the Schweppes product and take away from the social history. Any opinions? GyroMagician (talk) 09:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

A picture of a bottle is indispensable. I had already looked on Flikr but there were none that were royalty free. Maybe someone could pop into Morrison's or Waitrose, buy one, and photograph it. The idea of an old one is good too; probably best to go to the museum and ask the curator if one can take a photo of an old bottle. I have written to Rose Garrard to ask if she can supply us with some photos of her sculptures and other spouts with permission to use them. I've checked out some of the other water pages too (to think that Headbomb accused us of advertising!); I think we could use the brand template. However, it would need a tweak to the page format to relegate it to the level of the Commercial section, because this article is not specifically about it - it would nevertheless be silly to make a separate article just for the brand. It would certainly be interesting, because the contents would show zeros for all the chemical elements.--Kudpung (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The zeros amused me too - not much of a sales pitch! Going to the museum is a good idea. Is anyone out there actually near Malvern? GyroMagician (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Although I live in Asia I have a home in Barnards Green ⅓ mile from the town centre. I shall be spending several weeks there from 28 August.--Kudpung (talk) 01:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Work in Progress

I think I've found a tag that might allow current work on articles to be carried out without unnecessary flagging & tagging. If it's not the right one to use, feel free to revert or change. If it is the right one, it might be useful for other articles currently being improved.--Kudpung (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette filing

see here (now archived)

Since you are unable to drop the issue, I've filled a wikiquette alert. Headbomb {^{τたうαあるふぁλらむだκかっぱ}_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I had considered the issue dropped. You have still not given any help. I still do not understand what you think is missing/wrong/weasel/pov. If you have any useful advice about how to improve the article, I'm listening. But thanks for the encouragement so far. GyroMagician (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

headbomb's citations in his complaint are quoted largely out of context and do not mention his use of offensive language. I think any issues concerning incivility are clearly demonstrated in Headbomb's use of grossly inappropriate language in his messages, and misrepresentations and exaggerations (with contrived examples) of the implications of the article's text in his messages. Our replies and explanations to him both here and on his talk page have been made with the utmost civility. He should not forget that he has already admitted to many errors in his judgement and that his contentions on all counts are opposed by a large majority, who have already considered the matter dropped (twice over). For the record, I am reproducing the most recent message to Headbomb on his talk page, which he has clearly not read before filing his complaint.:

Headbomb, I think you've got yourself into a knot over this issue. The bad faith and Wikilmawyering, bad language, and exaggerations only come from one quarter. With your various misunderstandings of the article's text and your comments, you have clearly admitted being unsure both of the article's subject content, and of your action. Three editors of the article, one member of the project, and one outside Wikipedian all oppose your tagging. The article has been revised again, is still in progress, and the current tag has been removed, so please don't replace it with yet another different one from your ready-to-paste repertoire. The best thing to do now is let us all as responsible and mature editors/contributors get on with our various projects and save time all round, and if you have a particular interest in Worcestershire and something to offer, you are welcome to join our Wiki project. --[[User:Kudpung|Kudpung]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 08:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Clearly Headbomb is the one here who is not prepared to drop the issue, and I have left a suitable summary on the complaints page. I think a separate counter-complaint from us would probably not be necessary.--Kudpung (talk) 01:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Food and Drink assessment

I have assessed this article as a c-class article. It has several issues that can be found in the comments section of the banner. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm clearly missing something. What is being advertised? (Malvern, the Water Cure, Schweppes?) As far as I can tell the article is very well referenced, historically accurate, and does not overly focus on the commercial side of Malvern water. I count 12 lines in the commercialisation section, to about 6 pages for the whole article (as rendered on my screen). The article even lists a number of springs where the water can be (and is) collected for free. The history of the water is closely tied to the water cure. I don't think this article makes any claim to the usefulness of the water cure, but the cure was significant in its time, and important in the development of Malvern as a town. As has been pointed out previously, the fact that somebody bottles and sells Malvern water does not mean we should not have an article about the water, or detail its history. Forgive me if I'm a little annoyed, but we've been through this once before (see above). Being given a blanket 'this is an advertisement' when we have specifically tried to avoid that is just not enough information. For your other comments:

Done (somebody please check).

1. Two quotes moved inline. It would be unusual to put poetry inline, so left as display.
2. Fine by me, please move it.
3. 'Water in Medicine' -> 'Medicinal use'. After reading linked guide, I can't find any other problems.
4. 'Prominent consumers' - trivia, a source of local pride, or simple fact? I think the section is a brief statement of fact. Locally, it is thought of as an endorsement of the water, rather than who bottles it. Just to see where we are setting the bar for notability, the Coca-cola page (rated as high quality) includes a section about its effectiveness as spermicide (to my knowledge, no similar study has been performed with Malvern water).

GyroMagician (talk) 12:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It reads like a travel brochure, not an article on the subject. The prose lacks neutrality on the subject; the text, which is decidedly flowery, should be edited a little to cut back on peacock statements and/or WP:Weasel words. Any reviewer will make such suggestions, so don't think I am critiquing the subject, just the way it is presented.

1. That looks a whole lot better, good job.
2. The name appears to be capitalized in my google searches on the subject, so it would be proper to keep it as it is for now.
3. Regarding the section headers, you should not include the title (Water) of the article with in section titles. It is part of the manual of style, please trust me on that.
4. You are comparing apples to oranges with the Coca-Cola reference. There is an series of old urban myths and legends about Coca-Cola that are wrapped into the history of the project which have even produced television shows about them (see Mythbusters). I, as the reviewer, see no pertinence to the article regarding famous drinkers of the product - it is trivial and its inclusion adds nothing to the subject; however if you wish to include these data, please see the similar section in the Joan's on Third article for the proper way to add a section such as that.

If you want a serious review that will give you suggestions on what needs to be done to improve the article, please request a peer review. The contributors will be glad to give you pointers that will help you improve the article to B-Class or better. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 09:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now we've got something more constructive, thank you.

1 No problem.

2 The name is usually capitalised, but I really don't care either way.

3 I'm not questioning your knowledge of Wikipedia or the MoS, I'm sure you're more familiar with it than I am. The only problematic section name would then be 'Water and Art' - what would you recommend? 'Art' maybe?

4 I don't see the difference. I'm amazed that anyone can sell bottled water, but I think this is a good example of celebrity branding. It's not simply that assorted Royalty drink it, it's that they bother to ship crates of the stuff where ever they go. I would have thought that was notable, but maybe I'm wrong. I don't like the 'prominent consumers' title, but we moved the paragraph from (I think) commercialisation, after the last advertising complaint.

What I strongly disagree with is the advertising banner - the article may be flowery, and perhaps gives more historic detail than necessary, but it certainly does not advertise a product. Again I'd like to point out that Malvern Water has a story beyond being bottled by Schweppes. GyroMagician (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Reassessment

I have begun re-assessing the article, I will continue to look at it per the guidelines established in the B-Checklist for WP:Food --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Advertising tag

Just to note, the advertising tag I placed on this article does not concern citations, but the tone of the article. It contains several peacock statements and weasel words that violate neutrality guidelines. Adding citations is great, but the article needs a good copy edit to eliminate the problems. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 22:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I've misunderstood why you added the advertising banner - could I ask for a quick clarification? Do you think this is advertising a Schweppes product (what I assumed you meant) or do you simply mean the tone of the article is too 'peacock'? GyroMagician (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I mean the latter. The prose reads like a travel brochure, that is it is too 'peacock'. The content is fine, but it needs to have the "flourish" type wording eliminated. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now. Yes, in that case I agree. I've started working on it. Thx GyroMagician (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been through all sections except 'Medicinal use', I think I'm starting to tame the article. If somebody else would read over it, and untangle that last section, that would be much appreciated. GyroMagician (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think your efforts to improve the article, (GyroMagician talk), are paying off. I see that (Jerem43 has removed the adversising tag, and I agree that the article is much improved. The speedy removal of the tag by the same editor who placed it there in the first place is also the single best evidence for any skeptics (I am aware of some criticisms about tagging), that the tagging was in good faith.

On the "flourish" referred to by (Jerem43, the most recent addition of this was mine. I see your point and have no issue with (GyroMagician talk) removing it in that form. I have replaced the citations using a simple descriptive sentence, without the 'flourish' (a better descriptor than my own in the summary). I have left the word 'renown' in the sentence, because I simply can't think of a more succinct and accurate descriptor, which is all it is. The place is renowned, and it is renowned because people wrote about it and promoted it (which coincided with such things as social and political movements, as well as industrial and commercial developments - in short, a remarkable period in recent history), which is why we now know about it. So I've used the descriptor without the flourish.

It is also true that Malvern water fame is inseparable from the hills, both geologically and in terms of the setting, but that is probably self-evident, or becomes self-evident as people read both the article and the various citations. For example, I only know - as I'm sure for others - because in what I read, with few exceptions, the descriptions are inseparable in works that focus on Malvern or Malvern water.

On the 'Medicinal Use' section, this could probably do with some work, and indeed it contains a modicum of flourish. One of the difficulties with describing earlier writings is that it is sometimes difficult to pare the description down to the essence of the writing, without losing the essence itself. So sometimes it's easier to quote the writings of an era - or portions of it - because this itself imparts information on world views of the day that would not otherwise be known.Wotnow (talk) 02:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)Wotnow

I think you guys have done a good job in cleaning the article up. This is an interesting article than has the potential of becoming a future featured article if you work hard on it. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Cheers (Jerem43, (GyroMagician talk), and others as appropriate.Wotnow (talk) 06:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Wotnow

Thanks Jeremy. Yes, it definitely looks better. I'll keep hacking away at the article and see how far we can get it - the history is certainly more interesting than I expected it to be when we started this page. And I think I owe you an apology for my aggressive response to your original tagging. I misunderstood the advertising tag - I thought your complaint was that the article was advertising the Schweppes product, rather than a comment on the writing style. My bad - thanks for your continued encouragement.

Wotnow - thanks for your help. As you say, I think it is self evident from the article that the water, hills and history of the town are inseparable. I would like to keep the opening paragraphs very focused and succinct - maybe the line about ex-patients would be better placed in the 'medicinal use' section? One of the things I enjoy about reading books from the time is the flourish in the writing, but the style doesn't really fit Wikipedia. I guess our challenge is to translate the original text from 18?? into the terse clarity of a well written modern encyclopedia. I'm glad you took my edits in the sense they were meant (simply to improve the article) - and never hesitate to brutally chop my writing when it needs it, or revert over-zealous cutting! GyroMagician (talk) 09:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Referencing

I have updated the referencing to a style utilised by User:Chienlit for the Vincent Priessnitz article on 15 November 2009. It makes the article much easier to read when editing. It also makes it easier to fix up the references themselves, and to pick up errors in both text and refs.

The Priessnitz article has 15 refs and the difference is still noticable when editing. For articles with lots of references, it proves very handy. See what you think anyway. This article currently has 30 refs, which made the task containable in time-mangement terms. But it still took me about 1 1/2 hours, although that may say more about me than the process. I did in the process make some improvements - I hope - to some refs, and I shuffled the two Metcalfe refs into date order as they are side-by-side in the text.

I did struggle to get the Hansard ref to play ball with the Wikibizzo. Rather than complying and showing up all neat-like, it kept showing the formatting and mocking me like it had parliamentary privilege or something, although I may of course have been losing it a bit by then. Anyway, I gave up on the Wikibizzo and just placed it between the ref tags, which seemed good enough. If anyone wants to Wikibizzo it, be my guest. Perhaps then it'll stop mocking me.Wotnow (talk) 06:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Wotnow

Interesting, I haven't seen this ref style before. Wikipedia can be a bit of a monster sometimes, and I haven't found a reasonable way to manage reference before. I like this - especially for multiple uses of the same ref - I think I'll adopt it elsewhere. Nice work. GyroMagician (talk) 07:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. I think you will find it useful for articles with multiple refs, lots of refs, complex refs, and all of the above, as it keeps the article text simple regardless of the refs, while making management of the refs themselves easier. Don't forget the )) at the end of the References section to close off the Wikibizzo formatting. I was going to place the blank templates here, as in the 'cheatsheet', but if I just copy and paste from an editing page, it doesn't show up on the viewing page.

So here is the format for anyone reading this page, using keyboard rather than Wikibizzo.

• In the article text, place inline citation thingy,

GyroMagician's neat trick

{{r|Thisbit}}

where "Thisbit" is from the

<ref name="Thisbit">

tag of the reference.

• Then the 'References' section header, after which goes

• {{reflist|2|refs= ... }}

Insert references here, using standard, all-you-can-eat Wikibizzos. And don't forget the closing brackets below, so your referneces actually show up.

I'd have placed a template here, such as is found on the cheatsheets, that can just be copied-and pasted, but I don't know how to do that. Perhaps someone familiar with making templates could assist.

As for that recalcitrant Hansard ref, perhaps I should learn from Edgar Allan Poe.

Comply with Wikibizzo for sure?

Quoth the Hansard "Nevermore" etc

Wotnow (talk) 10:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Wotnow

Here's a neat trick: Template:Cite hansard - as I said, Wikipedia is a monster, it's all there, but sometimes it takes a while to find ;-)

To format text so the wiki won't format it (if you follow my meaning), put the text inside PRE tags - it appears on the standard toolbar as a W in a red circle with a red line through it. I've added them to your text so it shows on screen. So, to summarise, in the body text add:

{{r|myRefName}}

and in the reference list at the bottom of the page add the traditional-style reference:

<ref name="myRefName">{{cite STANDARD CITE TEMPLATE}}</ref>

where STANDARD CITE TEMPLATE is one of these. Very neat. GyroMagician (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Referencing, reply, and the power of Wikibizzo

A slightly belated thanks is in order. Your attitude and help have been nothing less than excellent. I have already utilised the template you created for the new ref structure, in three articles (Water cure (torture), Hydrotherapy, & James Currie} which is easier and more efficient than opening up an editing page of an article with the style, and copying the relevant bits, one at at time, into the article being worked on. Thanks too for your feedback on the Hansard template. I guess it's Parliamentary privilege of a sort - it gets it's own template. And I see you swiftly tamed the recalcitrant Hansard ref with the power of Wikibizzo, ("the all-new wonder-fix!"). I agree there's some quite neat stuff in this Wikibizzo. One might be tempted to add to the two poetry lines above:

Setting forth with no more to show,

GyroMagician tried Wikibizzo.

Hansard verily complied.

And all recalcitrance, it died.

Need more Wikibizzo-cure?

Quoth the Hansard "Nevermore" Wotnow (talk) 06:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Wotnow

Please note: Irespective of independent project guidelines, Wikipedia clearly states:
The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged. Templates may be used or removed at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with other editors on the article. Because templates can be contentious, editors should not add citation templates, or change an article with a consistent citation format to another, without gaining consensus. See: WP:CT --Kudpung (talk) 07:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Friends of Malvern Springs and Wells (FMSW)

After about 5 minutes research, I think this new section was added in good faith. The editor made the addition from an anonymous account (no crime in itself), and after being reverted, registered to re-add the section. This certainly doesn't look like vandalism to me, it looks like someone trying to add something useful to the page. I think you were a bit hasty here Jeremy - Wikipedia is meant to be accessible and welcoming, so let's offer some help.

The paragraph does need work to make it suitable for Wikipedia. I'm happy to help do this. The main point is that you can't advertise anything here, even if the price only covers your printing and postage costs. To say that FMSW "produce a monthly newsletter" is fine. To say "produce a monthly newsletter for £N, subscriptions from X address" is not allowed. A link to a FMSW website (if it exists) is encouraged - if readers are interested, they will follow the link, where you can give all the information about your events and publications. I also suspect you may have a conflict of interest. That's not necessarily a problem, but you should state your interest in the subject. For me, I would be happy with a simple statement here on the talk page - maybe a section titled "Potential COI", where you state "I am one of the founders of FMSW" or similar (assuming that this is indeed the case!). I think we can avoid COI if MalvernSpa gives me information and I write the section. This only applies to FMSW and MSA - for all other sections of the article, I see no problem, and would encourage MalvernSpa to contribute.

For the actual content, I would suggest that we rename the "Malvern Spa Association" section to something like "Associations linked to Malvern Water" (which is a terrible name, I'll try and do better, but you get the idea), and include both MSA and FMSW, one paragraph each. If you (MalvernSpa) can point us to an article in the Malvern Gazette, or similar, about the founding of FMSW that would be useful, as we can cite it from the article.

There is clearly some politics in the background between the Malvern Spa Association and FMSW. I know nothing about the story, and don't want to know. Wikipedia is not the place for it, and I will warn everybody now that bringing the politics here will not be well received. If we all stick to simple statement of verifiable facts, and focus on the water, we can all get along just fine. Now, let's improve the article! GyroMagician (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This was added once already and deleted per WP:COI, WP:SPAM and WP:SELF, and I explained that when I deleted it. By continuity re-adding it pretty much in the same self-promotional manner, it goes from a good faith effort to vandalism. The information was written just like an advertisement for the http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.pnggroup and was self referential, the re-added information was not much better. If someone would like to add according to the standards of neutrality and avoiding COI issues, I would have no problem with it. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

As I see it, the addition to the article by Friends of Malvern Springs and Well is clearly self promotional, as indicated by the 1st person plural and the author, whether registered or not, has possibly never had, any intention of posting more than their standard promotional piece about their club. It may have ben done in good faith, but ignorance of the rules are no defence. The COI is blatant, and even if the addition is about a small, innocuous club, and even if that club is chaired by my two-streets-away neighbours and prolific Malvern writers Cora Weaver & Bruce Osborne, it clearly violates Wiki policy on several counts. Their claim that: …Friends now represent the premier interest group is certainly tongue-in-cheek and contentious, especially where the official Malvern Spa Association is a registered charity and receives funding from the Heritage Lottery Fund. The 'Friends' do not appear to receive funding from the ANOB as intimated on one of the many websites on which they have placed their mantra. Neither their existence nor their work is mentioned on any of the many official Malvern or ANOB web sites, and I suggest that the main reason for not mentioning them in the article is simply a lack of notability. I think they are a bunch of 'well wishers' (pun intended) who dress the wells and keep them clean, but they are neither a registered association, nor do they run to a website of their own, which is cheap enough to do nowadays. Nevertheless, if a consensus were to be reached to included them, I'm sure we can script something neutral to please all tastes.--Kudpung (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being too generous here, but I think it's worth offering an olive branch. And yes, I was influenced by seeing Cora Weaver & Bruce Osborne involved, but as we cite them in the article, I think it's relevant. An unregistered user added something to the article. It was reverted. They then registered, and re-added the same content. I'm not suggesting the offending paragraph should be added in its present form, it shouldn't. But this doesn't look like a vandal to me, it looks like someone who is new to Wikipedia. There was a (happier?) time when I had no idea what MOS, COI or even NPOV meant. These are necessary guidelines, but new users do not know about them. I think ignorance of the rules is some defence. Someone who knowingly breaks the rules deserves shouting at, while someone who breaks the rules by accident should have the rules explained to them. Tagging as vandal is not an explanation. I may be proved wrong here, but I think it is worth assuming good faith until shown otherwise. Remember folks, the encyclopaedia everyone can edit. GyroMagician (talk) 11:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You may be right about the politics: Research, while the MSA has a formal Constitution .However, on their own admission, the Friends are a loosely organised group,a nd even if they are a nice bunch of people I still think they lack notability particularly as they don't run to a website of their own. Many (most?) of the entries on the websites where they have mentioned themselves seem to be more of a discrete plug by Osbourne & Weaver to sell their books. Can't blame them for trying ;) Olive branch offered: Malvern Water#Interest groups. I'll pop round ands see them in April, they only live 300 m away in Hall Green. (almost opposite the Barnards Green Trough in fact!).
--Kudpung (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I tried to get a recent newsletter from MSA, but they never replied when I contacted them. The last one on their website is from 2006! I'm not sure if MSA actually do anything any more. I suspect FMSW is a splinter from MSA, but I don't know if it includes more than two people. GyroMagician (talk) 08:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The MSA is still very much alive, has an up to date, smart website, and held an important b AGM with leading keynote speakers very recently. It has over 410 active members and is well funded. I don't think there are any splinter groups, just a smaller group vying for notoriety, and trying desperately to sell their chaircouples' books.--Kudpung (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It's just a shame they don't seem to keep their public (or at least online) face very up-to-date. No reply to emails, no update to future plans for three years, committee list not updated since Oct 2007. I think it's a good project, I'd like to see them continue. I guess they're maybe more active in Malvern, where the water actually is. GyroMagician (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

References

Just for the record in case we need them in the future, this is a good source for references:
http://www.malvernhillsaonb.org.uk/documents/MalvernHillsAONB_AnnualReport2008-09.pdf
--Kudpung (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That is a primary source and would require secondary references. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 22:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

That is my suggestion, for what it's worth, if you want to keep the focus on the article itself and avoid having it become part of someone's cannon fodder in an ongoing controversy. Regards Wotnow (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point, and I will not object if you convert the article. I will not do it myself because I think this whole controversy has been one of the worst examples of bullying I have seen on Wikipedia, mixed with a peculiar hatred of templates and anyone who uses them (I should note that many sensible Wikipedians have also entered useful opinions in the discussion - I don't want to tar everyone with the same brush!). The template-for-deletion message that has been plastered across this and other pages looks more like a way to force editors to delete the template than an invitation to discuss. GyroMagician (talk) 08:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Cheers Gyro. Yes, setting the scene for a fait accompli outcome was my first assumption too regarding the TFD notification. But from perusing the related discussion, I am prepared to accept as reasonable the alternative hypothesis that it's currently the most efficient way known by those involved to notify relevant editors via relevant articles. One of the practical applications of Occam's razor is that where there are two possible hypotheses, one of which is conspiracy, and the other of which is some form of human error, human error is often the simplest explanation to explain the same set of facts.

An automated banner would do the trick as well, per a point made by yourself. Someone will know how to do that, but I don't. You'll see from my comment on your talkpage that the inline notifications in place when you looked were a genuine, pragmatic improvement by that anonymous editor to the situation prior to said editor's intervention. The anon editor didn't undo the situation he/she found, but did make the situation more bearable. I could be wrong, but I don't see the ((r)) controversy resolving peacefully anytime soon. given this, my main concern is that Malven and Malvern Water could become collateral damage from all this, and undo a collaborative effort that was more remarkable than at first meets the eye. That plus the distraction of effort. When I allocate my next block of time to Wikipedia, I'll swap the ((r)) templates in the articles, to get them out of harm's way. If the template ends up being deleted, the articles will be unaffected. If there is some sort of revolution and ((r)) templates take over the universe (who knows, George Lucas may want to do a movie sequel), well hey, they can always be reimplemented. Regards Wotnow (talk) 07:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done I have now completed the template replacement for this article. The time taken was about 11 minutes, for anyone contemplating the same exercise in another article. Wotnow (talk) 07:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1