User talk:Andrew Davidson/food and drink

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 04:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Dog & Bull has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails

WP:MILL

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mztourist (talk) 04:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dog & Bull is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dog & Bull until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Mztourist (talk) 09:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've been having fun adding little bits to the above article - I hope that's OK. Please feel free to change or remove any of my additions, if you like. I would have liked to have found more about the Bell inn but could not. There must be more out there, somewhere, but I'm running out of ideas about where to look. There is certainly more in the C19 newspapers about the inquest on the child. Let me know if you want me to add any of that (leaving out any horrific bits, of course) Victorian journalists were very compassionate, usually, so it should be possible to add the info tastefully. Storye book (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll be keeping an eye on the article as it goes through the DYK process and have some more bits to add as its long history fleshes out. Your additions from the newspaper archive were good. I looked at some other newspaper archives but didn't find much so it's interesting that they differ. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I look forward to seeing what new information appears. I have discovered from old newspaper reports that Butcher's Row was not the whole street (or at least not the whole of Surrey Street as it is today), but a row of very old jetted-storey buildings which was near, but didn't include, the Dog & Bull. That row was originally called the Shambles. The row burned down on 9 October 1910, and on 7 January 1911 it was reported that the footings or part-walls of the old Market building were discovered inside or underneath - not sure which because the microfilmed image is too dark to see. I would have liked to have added that to the article, but I don't suppose it belongs there. The Victoria County History mentions, if I remember rightly, that the Market building was erected in Tudor times. Storye book (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• And another thing ... The premises damaged by fire were: no.38 Surrey St fried fish shop, no.35 butcher's shop, 37 hardware stores, 39 shop, 40 cinemategraph hall, un-numbered empty storeroom for 39 and 41, 41 wardrobe dealer, 42, butcher's shop. I have copied this in the same number order as in the newspaper - the ordering is odd, but there it is. Storye book (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The area seems quite rich in history but it's on the other side of London from me. I've never been there and tend to avoid going south of river as it's out of my comfort zone. Anyway, all that good stuff can go in the Surrey Street Market article. Note that a shambles is another name for a place of slaughter and so fits with the Butcher's Row name. This sort of topic is like a jigsaw puzzle -- fitting all the pieces is good fun, eh? Andrew🐉(talk) 20:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ha, yes, fun, but I'm even further away - Yorkshire. But if the lockdown eases up over summer, I may be able to ask a West Sussex friend to pop over and photograph the windows from the inside, if someone hasn't done that already. Fingers crossed for that. I didn't realise that shambles meant slaughter - yes that does make sense.Storye book (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oops, sorry, I should have explained. See File:Dog and Bull pub, Croydon.jpg. The journalist got the date wrong. If you disagree about that, then I'll get the commons image deleted. Storye book (talk) 12:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure what journalist you mean. I found the image on Flickr which states quite plausibly that the photo was taken in 1987 and so it's not PD. CAMRA's The Drinker says that the major renovation which had the place merged with A.E.Pearce took place in the early 90's and so it fits that timeline. There seem to be lots of postcards of Surrey Street out there so maybe we can find something older. For the Greene Man, I was able to find several old paintings but that place was more picturesque and artists drank there!
• This discussion would be best recorded on the article's talk page now that it is reasonably safe from deletion. I'll copy it there.

Andrew🐉(talk) 12:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. I have tagged the Commons image for deletion, and replied on the article talk page. Storye book (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 February 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dog & Bull, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in the 1970s a saxophonist led Major Surgery at a pub in South London? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dog & Bull. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Dog & Bull), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Today is not 1 April: confusing hooks are not appropriate. Furthermore, you misapply WP:PREFER — it's talking about pages that have been protected because of content disputes, not pages that have been protected to prevent vandalism. Nyttend (talk) 13:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Nyttend's comment relates to this discussion at WP:ERRORS, where the issue was resolved. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article got 5,812 views on the day – good enough for an entry at

Hi Andrew -- I had to pull Dog & Bull from the February DYK stats. Because it appeared in a 24-hour queue, the minimum for inclusion is 10,000 views. Cbl62 (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I stand corrected. As they might say down at the old Dog & Bull, "Gertcha"! Andrew🐉(talk) 19:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gaby's Deli, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that then-Mayor of London Boris Johnson and Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn campaigned to save Gaby's Deli? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gaby's Deli. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Gaby's Deli), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well ... no doubt you've found out-of-area substantive coverage in reliable sources that satisfy

• I mainly recalled being taken to a bagel shop in Brick Lane by Edward after an all-night editathon. That is reasonably notable and so I supposed that this other place is too. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Permit me a moment to push my jaw back into place. You're seriously saying that you deprodded an article because you went to some other bagel shop and you think that bagel shops are presumptively notable??? Ravenswing 17:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ravenswing's user page says that "This user is currently experiencing significant stress that may affect his ability to work on Wikipedia. This user may choose to work in quieter areas and avoid complicated tasks or areas prone to conflict." Proposing lots of articles for deletion does not seem to fit this prescription. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 December 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Greene Man, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that for a halfpenny fare, children could ride on a small chariot drawn by four muzzled mastiffs to the Farthing Pie House (pictured)? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Greene Man), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

--valereee (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

8,403 hits. Andrew D. (talk) 10:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see you removed the convert template on the page for the

• The addition of a parenthetic conversion was excessive and unnecessary detail contrary to
  🐉(talk) 10:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I think you miss the point that a vast number of English speakers (the former colonies) have no idea what an acre is and require an SI unit as per the Wiki MOS. It appears you are inserting a personal preference for units you are familiar with but that other readers are not familiar with. Reading an article in Wikipedia should not require you to get out a calculator. This is why we have the convert template, it keeps everyone happy. Avi8tor (talk) 08:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The hectare is not an SI unit. If a conversion into SI units seemed appropriate then the area would be best expressed as about half a square kilometre. But a conversion is not appropriate as it would be excessive clutter and detail in this context. As the topic is mostly historical, there are numerous references to unfamiliar people, places and concepts. Where a reader might want to know more about these, links are provided. Parenthetic elaborations are not then needed. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I believe you are incorrect, see hectare, which states "Hectare is an SI accepted metric system unit of area equal to a square with 100-metre sides, or 10,000 m2". Further Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Units_of_measurement states "The main unit in which a quantity is expressed should generally be an SI unit or non-SI unit officially accepted for use with the SI". I think you are putting your personal preferences ahead of all other readers of Wikipedia articles, these is nothing excessive or cluttered about having SI included, all articles in English generally have both. I personally have never used acres or feet, so I'd have to look up some conversion to understand the size. I think you need to follow the MOS here and include either hectares or m2 in this particular article. I've been to the UK a number of times and the people I speak with generally use SI with the exception of miles and pints of beer. Australia also uses pints, but the word refers to a 500 ml glass of beer. The USA uses pints but it's a different size unit! Avi8tor (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you use this reference: david-hockney-print-fish-and-chip-shop-bradford :) --ClemRutter (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, I'll see what I can do with it. Andrew D. (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re this: technically, you violated Per WP:CONTESTED by you really should not be simply reverting the PROD and not without Explain[ing] why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page.[1] Even the message you left on the proposer's talk page after your second revert didn't give a reason for opposing the proposed deletion. So while it is technically out of line for User:Madmoons to re-add a PROD template that has been removed, that rule assumes that the template was removed in good faith, in accordance with the guidelines. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: actually, WP:CONTESTED covers both the points you mention, and you're seemingly incorrect on both. The wording says "You are strongly encouraged, but not required, to [...] explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion" and "If anyone, including the creator, removes a proposed deletion tag from a page, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith." So although it might have been nice for Andrew to have given some reasoning, the reinstatement of the prod was wrong, and the next avenue for this is AfD, not prod. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

counting votes

.

To be fair, though, Andrew has a history of opposing AFDs with ILIKEIT-type rationales, and even repeatedly violating

WP:ARS's requirement that a rationale for keeping the article be included in an AFD's listing on that board,http://[2][3][4]

and so probably shouldn't be reverting PRODs without giving any rationale. I'm neutral on whether the page in question should be deleted, mind you, so I'd rather have this be the last that is said on the matter lest I be seen as arguing for the deletion of an article whose deletion I might actually oppose.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So ... do you ever provide rationales when removing deletion tags?[5] Even if it is technically not a violation of policy, it comes across as deliberately disruptive, especially when your actual comments in AFDs often consist of bizarre counter-policy arguments, leaving other editors to assume you would give such counter-policy rationales if you gave any at all. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(by talk reader) I have long been considering asking for a topic ban against editors who attempt to prevent deletion without a valid policy rationale. I think there's an argument to be made that repeated ILIKEIT behavior is disruptive, and the editors involved simply need to be kept away from deletion processes. I'm still working out the idea. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About this, please give reasons in edit notes, especially if you are doing something that is going to end up absorbing a bunch of other people's time. Jytdog (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• No, per
  WP:REVTALK, we should "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content ... This creates an atmosphere where the only way to carry on discussion is to revert other editors!" Reasoning and debate belong in discussion pages such as the AfD which has been started for this matter. I have commented in detail there. Such comments also do not belong in edit summaries because the edit summaries cannot be edited to correct complex markup such as as links and templates. Edit summaries should be succinct and there was significant pushback when their maximum size was increased because people don't want walls of text in their watchlist. Andrew D. (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

A topic that I suspect may be of interest to you. Feel free to help expand this new article if you're interested. Some entries would benefit from descriptions, such as those housed in buildings that are Grade II listed. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it has crossed my mind to create something like this but I never got around to it. I'll help expand it but Edwardx is the the one we really need to get involved as he has created many of the individual articles. Andrew D. (talk) 06:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the reply, for pinging a potentially interested user, and for your additions to the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you reverted my page move? Clearly the page is not a 'List of pubs in the United Kingdom' and attempting to fulfil that description would result in a very large, not to mention extremely boring, article. The page IS a list of 'notable' UK pubs, so I don't understand your motivation.Obscurasky (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. There was no
   consensus
   for the move.
2. The new title "List notable of pubs in the United Kingdom" was garbled and ungrammatical.
3. Per
   WP:LISTNAME
   , "Best practice is usually to avoid words like notable, famous, noted, prominent, etc. in the title of a list article."

Andrew D. (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the 'better practice' being what - inaccurately titled articles? Obscurasky (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On 4 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Old Slaughter's Coffee House, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Benjamin Franklin played chess at Old Slaughter's Coffee House (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Old Slaughter's Coffee House. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Old Slaughter's Coffee House), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrew- thanks for taking part on Friday. You mentioned that you took a photo of the event and put it somewhere on social media. Can you point me to it? Thanks, MartinPoulter (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MartinPoulter: I've uploaded the image (right). The tweet contains the hashtag so you can find what others have done too. Thanks for helping to organise the event; it was a good one. Andrew D. (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC) ‎[reply]

Awesome! Thanks, MartinPoulter (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2018

Sup Andrew-D. Any reason this hasn't yet got an on-Wiki page? Take care! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 13:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The page for this series of events is Wikipedia:GLAM/Oxford Food Symposium. The on-wiki page tends to lag behind the coverage on the sites of the sponsoring organisations, as the focus is on drawing in attendance from their communities rather than ours. Andrew D. (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Great stuff, many thanks. I really ought to sign up for the BL event then. Cheers! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 13:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Better move fast as there aren't many spots left and it's also being plugged in other places such as the Symposium site. Andrew D. (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Would it be preferred to leave the space for a woman? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 13:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The Symposium last year was quite a mixed bunch from foodies to farmers like James Rebanks. The BL events have had more women but seem reasonably open to the public. Being a mid-week event will tend to limit attendance and my impression is that they are trying to fill up the last few places now. It's good to have a leavening of veterans like us as newbies need a lot of hand-holding and we're also effective at getting pages written. The BL is a good place to hang out and get wiki-work done so it's good to support events there. And it would be interesting to meet you. Andrew D. (talk) 14:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Is that "Interesting" in the Chinese fashion  ;) Indeed it would, AD. I'give them a bell. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Bollinger