User talk:Chappy84/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Chappy84. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
| This is a subpage of Chappy84's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Welcome to Wikipedia!!!
|
--Durin 12:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Important rule to remember
The Three Revert Rule (3RR) - whch basically says that you can only revert the same page 3 times within 24 hours. Please take a read of that rule, upon a brief overview it looks to me that you have actually violated it on Galatasaray. Becaue you are a new user and this is your first violation you will not be blocked, but be mindful that violations of this block usually do lead to temporary blocks.--Konstable 20:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- I apologise I became aware of the rule after I had performed the reverts when I looked through the history of a page, I will be mindful of the rule in the future. --Chappy84 22:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Unspecified source for Image:Yeboah150.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Yeboah150.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. feydey 12:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- added source to page, sorry, forgot about souce --Chappy84 12:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Template:Leeds United AFC Squad
What makes you think
Manager Carver (caretaker)
is more correct than
Caretaker Manager Carver
?
sʟυмɢυм • т • c 15:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- because
Manager Carver (caretaker)
uses the code where manager is a correct part of the template, where as num=Caretaker Manager isn't technically part of how the template should be used user:Mattythewhite seems to agree via his edits. look at the leeds page, and indeed other pages that have a caretaker on, they all have (Caretaker) after the managers name under the category Manager not "Caretaker Manager" then the name, the only place Caretaker Manager is used is in blocks of text. --Chappy84 15:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I see. You should talk to the creator of the Template:Football squad2 manager and get his or her view. Template:Football club infobox, being an infobox, isn't as versatile as the Squad group of templates, and requires "Caretaker" as a suffix and in brackets. Both of the above denotations are ad hoc but one looks better. sʟυмɢυм • т • c 16:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- I noticed a European club had "Head Coach" in their infobox, using the mgrtitle option, and I have changed Leeds' infobox accordingly. I've also modified Template:Football squad2 manager so the same thing can be done using the same title option that the header uses. Thanks for inspiring me. sʟυмɢυм • т • c 20:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- go forth and program, my humble subject. --Chappy84 20:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Kits
Most kits have decorative piping, including it on all of them would be a un-ending task. Sashes are rarer and a more notable part of the design. The camo one I'm not familiary with the circumstances and "swfcaway" one should probably be removed too. Thanks, ed g2s • talk 19:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ok i get that it would be an un-ending task, but why can't they be used on kits where editors can be bothered?--Chappy84 19:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Leeds United
I would recommend creating a new page of the history of Leeds United, as this is where the bulkiest information in the page is.
This page could be called either History of Leeds United or History of Leeds United AFC. All of the information regarding the orginal history should be placed here. On the main Leeds United Page, there should be a summary of Leeds United's history, then a new section regarding their recent history, eg from the Aiming for a Return to The Premiership section. This would then fit in with the current situation at Leeds United. At the top, their would be a link to the new article. A similar soultion has been used on the Manchester United page, although there was enough information there to break the history down into several dated pages. I do not think this needs to be done here.
Please leave a message if you have any thoguhts on my suggestions. --Jorvik 20:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I would tend more to leave the history where it is in the main LU page, and probably a very brief resume of the current history. Rivalries might naturally stay in the main page. Then have separate articles for (1) recent history (say, since David O'Leary) and the financial morass we were in, (2) Leeds United Honours & records, (2) Leeds United players & Managers, past & present (this would include transfers, 100 greatest, etc) and (3) Club Officials, management & sponsors
Britstyx 15:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Well done with the work so far on the new competition page. I also think there should be a new page to complement the competition one where the 'sequence' records should be. This new page could be called Leeds United AFC Sequences Record or Leeds United AFC Sequence Records. All the records that involve 'most ...', 'best ...' and 'record ...' should be placed here.
Again, plese leave a message with any thoughts. --Jorvik 21:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, Chappy. I just read your message - will look at possible revisions in the next few days. Phil Britstyx 00:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, sorry for the delay in responding. I'll be honest, I don't see many areas that you could reasonably trim. It is longer than the other clubs' pages, but we do have a particularly storied history! I would tend now to leave it as you have itBritstyx 17:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Robert Molenaar
Thanks for your efforts with this article. I was amazed that there wasn't anything on wiki already about him! Downunda 23:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Leftfield
Just wanted to say thanks for your contributions to Leftfield - it's something I've been meaning to do for a while but have been too occupied with Fluke! Martin Hinks 16:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Football Hooliganism
As you have strong view on the Galatasaray hooliganism article, I was wondering if you could share them on the Football hooliganism article as a user is removing related information from it. --Englishrose 17:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- To be honest, I agree it should also be on the Galatasaray but it defintley should be on the Football hooliganism page as well. Englishrose 17:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- You've got a rock solid argument for it to be in the Galatasaray article, simply because it was portrayed in the world media as being Galatasaray fans and it is associated with them. Yes, both views must be shown but the argument for it to be included is far stronger than the argument for it no to be. Englishrose 18:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- Sigh he's done it again and I'm in danger of breaking 3RR. Englishrose 19:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Preemptive disambiguations
I notice you are retitling articles in the sequence EP1, EP2 et cetera. While it's easy to imagine these being common titles, they really aren't, and preemptive disambiguation is actually discouraged on Wikipedia except in special cases. As it stands, you've created a bunch of dab pages with single entries on them, which is just wrong. I would like to move these back, but don't want to risk an unwieldy edit war. Can we come to an agreement on this? – edgarde 16:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- cut & paste from edgarde's talk page:
Hi, I'm sorry if I didn't really explain properly on the page why I've done this. The reason I did this was that several bands (such as Vib Gyor) release demo EP's under these names before they actually release an album under a real name and once the bands become successful people may want to create a page with these names to create a full history of the bands discography, I haven't got around to it yet but I do intent to create pages for the Vib Gyor EPs and will add links to these pages in due course when I have got round to creating the pages. Unfortunately also due to the way in which wiki works the pages can't be moved back straight off without the intervention of an administrator as the pages simply labeled EP without the bands name in brackets after must first be deleted before the page and its history, and talk page and history are moved back, also I have re-directed all of the links on other pages to the new pages so these will have to be altered back if the page is moved back. I hate edit wars myself and don't want to get involved in one. If you feel that the work I have done really does need reverting then please contact an administrator and if they feel the revert needs to take place then I will fully accept their decision. --Chappy84 16:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Does Vib Gyor have an EP7? If not, then at least this page merits a return to the non-disambig'ed title. The Autechre album by this name is reasonably well-known, and AMG lists no other album with that title. – edgarde 16:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Just putting in my opinion. I don't see any reason to move EP1, EP2, and EP3. If they had been to generic surely they would have led to conflicts. I find the lack of conflicts to be a good reason to not add lots of extra info to the name. --Lijnema 18:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Ahem. Since there are indeed other things called EP1, EP2, EP3 (those were really the ones I noticed), I'm agreeing that disambiguation pages for those is a good thing. Sorry 'bout the fuss. --Lijnema 21:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Just putting in my opinion. I don't see any reason to move EP1, EP2, and EP3. If they had been to generic surely they would have led to conflicts. I find the lack of conflicts to be a good reason to not add lots of extra info to the name. --Lijnema 18:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
This is getting nutty
EP7 as of 00:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC):
EP7 is a generic name
- EP7 (Autechre ep) - the album by Autechre
- EP07 - a Polish electric locomotive used by the Polish railway operator (PKP)
- Star Wars Episode 7 - planned to be released as a book
- short for the 7th Episode in many TV Series
Of these, maybe EP07 merits a disambig link, but even so the Autechre album should be the main page. I think the correct procedure would be to rename this crazy page EP7 (disambiguation), and then rename EP7 (Autechre ep) (which is actually an album collecting two EPs) back to EP7. Can we agree on this? – edgarde 00:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Making 'EPx (disambiguation)' pages sounds good to me, as there are no real name conflicts here. --Lijnema 15:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, but just fixing EP7 (Request to move, discussion) is already more work than I intended to take on. – edgarde 18:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Date linking
Just a quick query about this diff - could I please just ask about your justification for changing the link format? WP:DATE states that dates should be piped which allows MediaWiki to display dates according to user preferences (see "Dates containing a month and a day"). If you want to change the way this date is displayed, you can change it in your preferences under Date and Time. haz (talk) e 15:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Leeds United AFC player category
Can you please stop removing The "Leeds United AFC players" category from people who have been to the books of Leeds United AFC as they do not necessarily have to have played a first-team match for the club just be part of the on the books of the club, (see David Seaman he never played a 1st game at Leeds United) like the Arsenal F.C. player category says "They do not necessarily have to have played a first-team match for the club, though" Kingjamie 20:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- I have raised this matter at WikiProject Football talk. sʟυмɢυм • т • c 00:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
FA Cup Final lineups
I noticed you made a couple of FACF articles. I thought I'd mention that there is an alternative team lineup format, which was adopted for all the World Cup matches, and can be seen at FA Cup Final 2006. I would also consider that article to be the best FACF article. I plan to convert the other articles' lineups format to the newer one over time, so any help would be appreciated. Laters. sʟυмɢυм • т • c 00:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Subst:'ing
Please stop reverting. Templates such as {{fc}}, {{afc}} and {{efs}} are not intended to be left inline, they are merely a shortcut for editors and should be subst:'ed when used. robwingfield (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
re:Faithless
Please see WikiProject Songs regarding song articles. Using "(single)" is not correct. Articles are not to be about the physical single, but the song itself. This is why cover versions are shown within the same article as the original recording. I'm not sure what you're talking about re: American vs. English info. Yes, Faithless is an English group, but that doesn't mean editors cannot add U.S. chart information to their music articles. -- eo 19:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- English vs. American - no problem. The only text I have added is the U.S. dance chart thingy to "Salva Mea". Articles used to be written with "(single)" but several months ago the new naming convention was put into effect and basically anything you see that still says "(single)" is either old or it should be changed. Things began to spiral out of control when multiple versions of a song and/or remixes and re-issues were all getting their own articles. - eo 19:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, there was discussion about the single/song thing but ultimately it was decided that an article should be about a song, i.e. the writing process, the story behind it, the production, blah blah, etc.... and this allows for notable album tracks to have their own articles. If a song happened to be released as a single, then that is mentioned within the article and the appropriate infobox is added along with any chart positions, etc. I think the point is that being released as a single is just one aspect of a song's history, not the main focus. Ultimately it really isn't misleading, especially if following the Naming Conventions guideline, simply typing the song title into the search field will either bring the user to the article or a disambiguation page. Remixes and reissues really should all be included on the same page, perhaps with an explanation behind why it was re-recorded, etc.... but that is why I placed a merge tag on those articles rather than just combining them - this way you or anyone else can discuss it on the talk page. - eo 20:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, firstly, thanks for the update on this article secondly, I'm not disputing the info and I'm not going to remove it but I just wondered where you got the information from? as I feel information as exact as that should really be referenced on the page. Thanks. Chappy84 16:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- [1] & [2] - I just googled leeds city auction :) --Bedders 17:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Changes to Leeds page
Hi there
I made some revisions to the Leeds page, and all of them have been reverted. Can you please explain? Thanks! --Coopuk 17:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)