User talk:Ilikeeatingwaffles/Archive 3

Cska Sofia

Hi Dancarney Can you please help me as I am trying these days to update and refresh the PFC Cska Sofia page. And more spesificly about the Former notable player ( from other country), all other bulgarian I will translate by myself? Any help or feedback will be helpful. Thank you! Regards, ZloK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.188.185 (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• The first thing you need to do is to establish what defines a "notable player". For instance, does the club have a Hall of Fame, etc? Dancarney (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we have but it's only for bulgarian players... There are 66 player - 6 players for each position on the pitch. But thouse players which i wrote are national player for their contry's + helped for winning the champion title and other cups. Am confused a little about this ... so if they don't have some kind of honour they are not notable for the club. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZloK (talk • contribs) 15:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• If you want to have a notable players section is must be well defined otherwise it becomes a list of editors' favourite players and is totally unencyclopaedic. For example, large, successful clubs such as Real Madrid C.F. or Arsenal F.C. will have had countless very notable players in their squads over the years so you need to have clear inclusion and exclusion criteria to avoid a sprawling, meaningless list. The Arsenal article was a featured article and doesn't have a list of notable players at all! The manual of style for football clubs states that notable players means

  ...players of the club, who have had a major impact on the club's history. The section should use external sources for the list, not the personal opinions of editors.

  Dancarney (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much ... So for now all put just thouse that are in the Hall of Fame and i think that is better. I didn't had intention to put my favourite playrs in it. Any thing else that you thing is not all right at the page? There is no problem for me to translate part from the bulgarian page of Cska Sofia to the english one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZloK (talk • contribs) 16:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that there are a lot of problems with this page: the English needs improving; there are a lot of unreferenced parts; there are large gaps in the club's history; there is a lot of needless trivia and the page is generally messy in its layout. The club template needs tidying up to - it doesn't need to link to Bulgaria, for instance. Dancarney (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Well i'm just starting now improving it and I notice as well some of the problems. I do want to improve it and I hope i can manage to do it . Thanks again for the helpful advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZloK (talk • contribs) 17:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Cambridge in Literature and Film: in Cambridge vs. in the University

Not sure I agree with your recent edit to the Cambridge article; I've put my reasons in the Talk:Cambridge section for discussion. The Stumo (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Education in Suffolk

I saw your edits on someone else's talk page re education - I believe it's roughly a 50/50 split. Two tier is used in Felixstowe, Ipswich, Hadleigh, and then a wedge of central Suffolk all the way up to Eye and Stradbroke; three tier is used in Needham Market and everywhere west of the town, as well as Leiston/Aldeburgh and the Waveney Valley (Beccles, Bungay, Lowestoft). In population terms, I'd guess the split is roughly 50/50 as the Ipswich area is the most densley populated. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It'd be useful to have some third-party description of the set-up. I looked on the county council website but there wasn't a nice overview. It seems daft having the two main towns in Babergh (Sudbury and Hadleigh) using different schemes, but there you go. Dancarney (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The map on page 27 of this report shows the exact divide. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I must admit I did not realise it was that complicated, but I work with it and should know that it is! Suffoklk has three education zones South (two tier) West (three tier) and North (two tier but an odd bit in Lowestoft (you guessed Three!). Babergh has nothing to do with education as it is (for the moment) a second tier of local government. By the middle of February it most proberly will be announced that Barbergh will no longer exist, alongside St Edmundsbury, Forest Heath (which also has two types of schooling) and Waverley. Suffolk County Council run the education system so borough councils are irrelevant to the type of schooling, and they plan to close middle schools within a year or so.

255 primary schools 40 middle schools 33 high schools 5 upper 9 special schools 13 Pupil Referral Units and 1 nursery school.So though there are many that prefer three tier in Suffolk the majority are two tier. I will have a look at the article and see how it reads. Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 13:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

From the looks of the map and the numbers of schools it looks like the majority of Suffolk by area uses 3-tier but the majority by numbers uses 2-tier! I think that the appropriate section of Suffolk could do with a tidy up, and in Bury St Edmunds I think that the word majority is not useful in relation to the rest of the county, so I've changed it to suggest that the town is in a minority in England instead. Dancarney (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you have summed it up near perfectly, but to any outsider still as confusing, as to many insiders![[1]]is where I send people!!. Edmund Patrick – confer 14:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Three-tier education ‎

Hi. I'm just wondering why you removed the info I added to Three-tier education with an edit summary saying that it's erroneous? I think I may have been mistaken to say 'includes' on the LEAs which are all three-tier but numerous counties do have partial three-tier systems, including Suffolk and Warks. Dancarney (talk) 09:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello - I amended the information you had placed as there were a couple of errors. Firstly, there are only now the three authorities with wholly-three tier systems; Northumberland closed some of its three-tier schools last summer. Also, while you are right about Suffolk having a mixed economy, Warwickshire doesn't and hasn't done since 1996! Tafkam (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Simon Grayson

You're missing my point. I was asking why a graph should be excluded just because it only includes three years. Besides, it gets the point across more efficiently than prose does. Even a two-point graph would be okay in my eyes. Finally, please keep article-specific comments on the relevant talk page. I state as much at the top of mine. Thanks. - Dudesleeper / Talk 20:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

A two-point graph! Seriously? Dancarney (talk) 09:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of OxyVita

An article that you have been involved in editing, OxyVita, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OxyVita (2nd nomination). Thank you. Rogerb67 (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:GAN

Read that sentence aloud and tell me you do not need to pause after you read "formation".--TRUCO 23:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Not in British English, where spoken and written forms of the language are different. I think I've worked out where to point out my disagreement now, though! Dancarney (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Calm down, no hostility is needed. All you had to say was that the article was written in an english variation, which is fine, gee.--TRUCO 01:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't meant in a hostile fashion - the eternal problem of interpreting tone from text alone rises its ugly head again. I may, however, get hostile to your suggestion that British English is a 'variation'! Dancarney (talk) 07:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well don't get angry at me, get angry at Wikipedia for their policy on English variations.--TRUCO 00:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

OxyVita

You supported a merge of OxyVita to Hemoglobin-based oxygen carriers at a recent AfD discussion. That merge now needs to be done. Would you consider helping with that process, either be removing information from OxyVita that you don't think needs to be moved to the other article, or by copying information to the target article that you think should be preserved? Even a small amount of work from the people who supported the merge at AfD would be very helpful and appreciated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

AFC Sudbury

The planning application was granted on 28/08/2008, as it says on the Babergh DC planapp page already referenced (but didn't as at date of last access). Says work can't begin until they investigate possible land contamination, site's archaeological value, flood risk (as site mostly within floodplain). When you add whatever you add, don't forget to change the publication date (to the decision date above) and the accessdate in the cite-web ;-) Hope this helps, Struway2 (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does. Thanks! Dancarney (talk) 14:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Home Run

The MLB rule book citation is given as a reference to the specific rule. MLB rules are used at many levels of the game. Some leagues (such as Little League) use adapted versions of the official MLB rules. The question is how many citations are needed. It's a fundamental of baseball that runners must touch all the bases in proper order and not pass each other on the basepaths. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

So in which case it doesn't need to state in the text that it's an MLB rule, as it would apply in Japan, Cuba, etc? Dancarney (talk) 10:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe not the same rule number, though. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I've amended the text so it now covers baseball as a whole. Thanks for clearing it up for me. Dancarney (talk) 10:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The footnote still makes it clear that it's MLB's rule, but that's the case with some of the other rule stipulations also. If someone finds a contradiction in the Japanese rule book, for example, they could add that info. Japan is another one that has adapted the rules. One major difference is that games end after, at most, 12 innings. They don't keep on playing like they do in the American game. But I would very much doubt that the fundamentals of touching the bases are any different than the MLB rules. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The whole point of the article discussion, presumably, is to point out that the rules about touching the bases in order still apply even when time is called, as with an over-the-fence homer. Some might wonder why, if time is called, they don't just award the runs and not make the batter circle the bases, in contrast to cricket, where a "6" does not require the batsmen to run back and forth (see Boundary (cricket)). However, that's simply tradition - along with the fact that when a high fly ball is hit, there is no guarantee it will go over the fence, so everyone runs - or holds their bases if they think the ball might be caught, short of the fence. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Cambridge train times

I kinda agree with your edit that exact times are not relevant. However I think it is worthwhile saying that it takes about an hour to get from Cambridge to London by train. Agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs) 05:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not very encyclopaedic. Dancarney (talk) 09:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. It is not a question of the train times, just how far it is from London. For many non-UK readers, the times are important just to give an idea of how far it is (they only know London). Yes, it takes about an hour to get to Kings Cross from Heathrow, biut should we not somehow mention this? I don't expect a detailed expostition but "about an hour's travel north of London" or something like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs) 15:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Second sentence of the article reads

It lies about 50 miles (80 km) north of London.

There is also a set of coordinates with map link at the top of the page.Dancarney (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is important because some countries (notably Canada and the US) judge distance and time equally. I know we are not an atlas, and there is wikitravel.org etc, but basic information like this seems notable to me. We don't have to go over the top but a simple statement of fact seems reasonable. Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 00:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Aldershot Town FC

Why did you remove referenced material? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.169.33 (talk) 11:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't, I moved it to a different part of the same section, with the ref's included. You've undone the edit, and now the rivalries section starts off with a rivalry that the paragraph says doesn't exist. The more pertinent question is why did you undo my removal of unreferenced material? Dancarney (talk) 12:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The Us and the Prem

Thanks for catching me on this - my mistake. I was scan-reading, and thought the sentence was in reference to their more recent fortunes, and the Conference's recent aspirational renaming. Cheers for fixing it. Gonzonoir (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Metalist Kharkiv

You see, both of criterias you mentioned can only be applied to countries with strong capitalist traditions. Since all these "Hall of fames" and Best team polls are marketing product in its nature and usually exist only there. There's NO legitimate and recognized by anyone polls and Hall of fames in ex-USSR. A couple of magazines offer Team of the Year list since 1992, but including a player in a Famous players section based on that is not legitimate too, since ALL these newspapers considered biased and pro-"NameOfTeam" not to mention that pre-1992 players are discriminated even if we begin to trust such magazines as a source. About apperances - well, who's more deserving the Famous player title - a mediocre player that played a lot of games in lower leagues with a team in its bad times and forgotten by everyone by now, or a well-remembered player who had a significant role in a good version of same team, but was transferred shortly after? I think second one is certainly more deserving. So i'm removing that tag again because both these reasons apply to Metalist Kharkiv page.Chudinho —Preceding undated comment added 18:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC).

(Let's keep the discussion on one page) So what are the criteria for who is and who isn't notable? With no criteria, this section remains original research. Dancarney (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

To add my two penn'orth, I would say if it is possible to cite a reference, it should be cited. If not, the reference (on the assumption it is not obviously wrong) should stand, since its deletion subtracts rather than adds to collective knowledge, and if left included someone may come along later-- often very soon-- to add a reference (my experience is that people kinda wake up when you change an article). I know this is in a way against Wikipedia principles, but in practice one can't cite everything in one's head, and an article would be very dull if one did. (eg. WP:Overlink). So there are competing difficulties here when editing. SimonTrew (talk) 00:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no reference for this section. As it stands it is effectively a list of editors' favourite players. Dancarney (talk) 09:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is a discrimination I cant allow. You didnt even bothered to reply to my objections. This is not my list either, this list is approved by most Metalist-related Wikipedians. Please proceed to open a dispute or remove similar Western Europan clubs lists, otherwise i'll consider it as a discrimination of Ukrainian football.Chudinho —Preceding undated comment added 15:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC).

I have replied to your concerns. Defined criteria are required, otherwise the section cannot stand. On your talk page I highlighted the case of the featured article Arsenal F.C.. This Western European club does not have definable criteria to use, so the notable players section directs to List of Arsenal F.C. players and Arsenal F.C. records#Player records. Also, I have previously tagged Western European clubs so please be civil and refrain from bandying around accusations of discrimination. Dancarney (talk) 07:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Goodison

I think that the article is getting off topic with discussion of events before the stadium was conceived and name changes relating to Liverpool FC. However, another user disagrees with me. I'd appreciate your input on this. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Good positive suggestion. Anfield needs a mention. The meat will be moved over to the history page. That needs some work too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.56.234 (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Everton lead

Hi Dan. Looks like we had the same idea, I got edit conflicted because I was editing for so long! I've replaced your version with mine (hope you don't mind) as it includes more important links such as the Derby and Goodison. It also links together information such as the rivalry and home grounds in a coherent manner. Looks like we're locked down. Let's take it to the talk. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No offence taken! Dancarney (talk) 08:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, what's going on? I think this is bad manners. I am not the author of the section already established, but it seems reasonable that "Famous Evertonians" or "Famous Everton supporters" is added considering the number? Single sentence? No - it is a list of people - how that is formatted I do not know but it has to be given some merrit. I do however think it is in the wrong location and should be much lower down the Everton page Babydoll9799 (talk) 09:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There did use to be a Famous supporters section, but it became really unwieldy and so was pared back and put as a part of the supporters section. Even though it's a list, it's still one sentence. I'm in favour of scrapping it altogether, it's not exactly encyclopaedic and I can't see why it's of any interest regarding the football club. Dancarney (talk) 09:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Luton Town F.C.

I do my best. 000Cliftonian000 15:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bures railway station

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Bures railway station, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Notability of a station questionable. Suggest that this page be merged into Bures, England and this page deleted.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. magnius (talk) 23:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Goodison Park

I am not sure what tag you have added, but i am looking at the page thinking, testimonials, what has that got to do with Goodison Park? So I will add to discussion page, i think this needs to be removed Babydoll9799 (talk) 10:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Union template

Absolutely not. Perhaps you should check every other pro sports teams box before you determine what this one should look like.JaMikePA (talk) 09:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

OK - Template:Arsenal F.C., Template:Aston Villa F.C., Template:Blackburn Rovers F.C., Template:Bolton Wanderers F.C., Template:Chelsea F.C., Template:Everton F.C..... No repeated points to the same article in any of those. I could go through the whole Premier League and I think that would be consistent. Dancarney (talk) 11:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

SpVgg Greuther Fürth

If you look through the Bavarian football clubs articles, you will find, they all have recent season sections. Originally, I added league placings to as far back as I could find for clubs, like at FC Gundelfingen, but found them to be to bulky and overloading the article with statistics. Unless somebody is prepared to create an article like List of FC Bayern Munich seasons for every club, I prefer to keep information on the league finishes to the last ten seasons. You may fell, this falls under Wikipedia:Recentism, but so do Current squad sections and we certainly wouldn't list every player there that ever played for, lets say, Bayern Munich. While I understand your motivation, certain sections in articles will have to be recent by nature. Have fun, EA210269 (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Why 10 seasons though? I really think it should be an all or nothing, and have all seasons in one place, wherever that is, rather than an arbitrary number. I don't have a problem with current squad as it details what the club is at this moment in time. Dancarney (talk) 09:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but thats recentism, too. Why not list all players? Same reason for the recent season, it just becomes to much, listing over 100 seasons for SpVgg Greuther Fürth. Ten is just a round number, had to pick something. Incidently, thats also what the kicker end-of-season magazine does, lists the last 10 seasons. That saying, if you care to expand it further back, I would certainly not remove anything you added. EA210269 (talk) 10:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think recentism applies to the current squad. It is stating that this is the club now, a bit like in the lead one generally states the division/league that the club is competing in. Having recent transfers of players would, however, be recentism. By the way, I checked out a few football club articles that had reached Featured Article status (namely Arsenal F.C., Everton F.C., Gillingham F.C., Ipswich Town F.C. and Manchester City F.C.) and none of them feature a recent seasons section. Dancarney (talk) 10:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I had a look, they don't because they have, for example, List of Everton F.C. seasons. The English football project is really lucky, it has a large number of editors, the German doesn't. You can count the regulars on one hand, thats how bad it is. The few extra ones are only interessted in the current season. Anything historical and you will pretty much find 4 or 5 regular names to it, thats it. If you can come up with a handful of people that are willing to write, lets say, List of SpVgg Greuther Fürth seasons, I be over the moon, but I doubt it. I myself am not overly interessted in current stuff, I'm trying to cover the German football in the pre-1933 era, and there I'm completely alone. Anyway, like I said, if you are able to expand these articles, go ahead, I would love to see more on it done, but the taks is truely large. And as for clubs that havn't played in the top-four leagues, good luck finding anything before 2000, you really got to dig, or hold a decent German football library! EA210269 (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

AFC Wimbledon

I would favour cutting out the untidy looking "summaries" and merging them into a more cohesive "history". The summaries as it is consist of very little more than repeating information that can easily be garnered from the Seasons page. I'd keep the summary text more or less the same, but merged into more flowing prose. However, as they stand, they are a bit redundant. Cliftonian • talk 12:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Brighton & Hove Albion

Any reason you have removed the Notable Players section? - Consensus was established on the article talk page - [[2]]as to which players should be listed, and the section has been reasonably stable since then? Muchclag (talk) 16:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed it because there were no clear inclusion/exclusion criteria, which makes the list original research. All of the football club articles that have reached featured article status either have well-defined criteria (e.g. inclusion in a club's 'Hall of Fame') or a link to a list article or the player category. Dancarney (talk) 06:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Séamus Coleman

When you nominate an article for deletion it is usually polite to inform the creator of that article. Please do so. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 10:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Dancarney (talk) 10:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, try to avoid using WP:FOOTYN. As it is just an essay, its use is used by the keep voters as a reason to keep non-notable articles. You're better off always referring to WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)