Archives |
---|
Contents
The New Lawn
I can't find a capacity for The New Lawn. It was recently changed by a user, without sourcing where he received this information. I'm not sure what to use as the capacity, as I'm working on fixing the grammar and improving the article's status. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Leeds United FC fan: The FGR website gives it as 5,000, although this is a bit of a throwaway comment. However, numerous other sources give it as 5,140 (e.g. BBC). The latter is more detailed (it also gives the seat numbers), so looks a decent source. Number 57 14:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- What do you recommend using? I'd rather not get in some disagreement. In the user's edit descriptions, he mentioned the Gloucestershire council. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Leeds United FC fan: I would recommend using the BBC source for now (it seems fairly comprehensive) unless you can find the Gloucestershire report. Number 57 15:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- The football stadium guide says 5141. The BBC report seems a little old (it is archived) however until a definite answer can be found, I think it'd be a good idea to go with the BBC? Leeds United FC fan (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Leeds United FC fan: The Football Ground Guide also has 5,140 (not 5,141). However, there is a difference in the number of seats (BBC has 2,500, FGG has 2,000); this may be due to the fact that some seats were removed to create a terrace, so the lower figure is likely correct. Number 57 15:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
-
- As this is the first page I'm attempting to considerably improve (until now I have mostly updated information), does my most recent edit to the page seem suitable? Leeds United FC fan (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Leeds United FC fan: A few comments to get you started: Firstly you can start links in lower case (they are automatically converted when you click on them), and shouldn't make links like [[Stadium|stadium]]. Secondly, punctuation should go before a reference i.e. .<ref></ref> not <ref></ref>. Thirdly, Forest Green are a club not a team (their first team or reserves are teams). Lastly, there's no need to use "association football" on British articles, as it's clear what football means in this context. Cheers, Number 57 16:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for fixing these errors. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Leeds United FC fan: No problem; let me know if you need any further advice or guidance. It seems rather a waste that the club is seeking to build yet another new ground so soon after the New Lawn opened. Number 57 23:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for fixing these errors. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Leeds United FC fan: A few comments to get you started: Firstly you can start links in lower case (they are automatically converted when you click on them), and shouldn't make links like [[Stadium|stadium]]. Secondly, punctuation should go before a reference i.e. .<ref></ref> not <ref></ref>. Thirdly, Forest Green are a club not a team (their first team or reserves are teams). Lastly, there's no need to use "association football" on British articles, as it's clear what football means in this context. Cheers, Number 57 16:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- As this is the first page I'm attempting to considerably improve (until now I have mostly updated information), does my most recent edit to the page seem suitable? Leeds United FC fan (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
-
- @Leeds United FC fan: The Football Ground Guide also has 5,140 (not 5,141). However, there is a difference in the number of seats (BBC has 2,500, FGG has 2,000); this may be due to the fact that some seats were removed to create a terrace, so the lower figure is likely correct. Number 57 15:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- The football stadium guide says 5141. The BBC report seems a little old (it is archived) however until a definite answer can be found, I think it'd be a good idea to go with the BBC? Leeds United FC fan (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Leeds United FC fan: I would recommend using the BBC source for now (it seems fairly comprehensive) unless you can find the Gloucestershire report. Number 57 15:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- What do you recommend using? I'd rather not get in some disagreement. In the user's edit descriptions, he mentioned the Gloucestershire council. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Changes to Dulwich Hamlet F.C page
Hi - if you're going to undo changes made to pages (as with the Dulwich Hamlet F.C. page today), please ensure you revert to the correct, most recent version. You risk losing a lot of good work by others by not doing so. Thank you.
82.12.249.66 (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
With regards to your response, I appreciate the reversions made due to my errors. It would perhaps be useful if you had the good grace to acknowledge the same. I corrected your error with regards to the squad update date, and also the alphabetic ordering of the squad - don't think you spotted that one. I'd suggest that as an administrator, you should keep a closer eye on the changes you make. You could be leaving errors on multiple pages with your apparent lack of attention to detail.
With regards to the deliberate changes, please confirm why you removed the 'bits' from the notable players section. I'd suggest that a player representing a national team is notable.
82.12.249.66 (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
The England C team (not "England amateur" team as you suggest - the article on the England C team confirms that "Currently, the majority of selected players are full-time professionals with Conference Premier league clubs") represents England at non-league level. Players representing England C are therefore notable, as they are selected as the best players available at that level. And for a player to be picked for the England C team from a non-league team at the 7th step of the pyramid is, I would suggest, particularly notable.
By your rationale, is it only notable to play for the senior men's national football first team? What about national B teams? Or national team age groups - U21, U20, U19 etc? And what about the England women's national football team? Which, historically, has featured amateur and semi-professional players? Does such an approach not risk being accused of elitism or sexism?
As such, I would suggest that your reasoning is flawed, and on that basis, would request that you revert your edits.
82.12.249.66 (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
September 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Westmarch may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- *[[Westmarch (stadium)]], a defunct football stadium in Paisley, Scotland]]
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Forfarshire Cup, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Glebe Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Trinidad and Tobago general election, 2015
Hello, I appreciate the work you're doing to make/improve the article. However, I am a little disappointed in the edit reverts without at least discussing some of the changes first for consensus.
I disagree with this revision, and the notion that it is pointless duplicate table. There is merit to showing the People's Partnership consolidated vote totals somewhere in the article. It was displayed this way in the 2010 version of the page, and they formed the previous government. From an encyclopedic point of view, their consolidated vote totals and seat counts is relevant. In the media, this consolidated amount is frequently reported. Perhaps it is duplicate to show it as another table and it could be put in a paragraph/sentence, but please consider talking about changes that remove information. I'm trying to be reasonable and not engage in an edit war over this. -- R45 talk! 11:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- @R45: I agree with the idea that it could be mentioned in prose at the start of the section, and have added this. I guess another thing that could be done is to add (PP) after the names alliance's parties in the table; this would help highlight/remind readers who they are. However, two tables is really a bit much, especially when there is another one directly beneath the expanded results. I also appreciate you discussing this rather than reverting. Cheers, Number 57 12:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- @R45: See the table at Singaporean general election, 1955#Results for what I mean by detailing the alliance in the table. Cheers, Number 57 12:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 09 September 2015
- Gallery: Being Welsh
- News and notes: The Swedish Wikipedia's controversial two-millionth article
- In the media: Calling all scientists!; More Wikipedia editors in the Netherlands than all of Africa combined
- Featured content: Killed by flying debris
- Traffic report: Mass media production traffic
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
T+T general election, 2015
[[1]]120.62.18.210 (talk) 12:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Re:polls in infobox
I'm definitely not a fan of that either and would support removing that function from the template. However, at least that page lists the most recent poll from every firm. I don't see why polls need to be included in the infobox in the first place but setting that aside there also seems to be a lot of selective and/or abusive use of the function. For example, on the pages for Australian elections editors are including only the most recent poll in the infobox no matter what firm its from. To make things worse, it doesn't even list what firm its from in the infobox! Example of this here (its done on all Australian election pages just look at the template at the bottom.)
Like I said though, I don't see the purpose of the function anyways. Even when there's a fair sample of polls and they're properly identified (as in the article you linked) they're just repeated a little farther down with equal or more context and/or information. So, over all, I don't see the point of the function and it seems frequently abused anyways. Also, I think its ugly (although YMMV.) --4idaho (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Gibraltar
Gibraltar is non-sovereign. This means it is part of another sovereign state. The United Kingdom is a sovereign state. Gibraltar is part of the sovereign state of the United Kingdom, but not part of the actual United Kingdom. Nevertheless, I will add the page to a separate category. AusLondonder (talk) 23:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- @AusLondonder: No, that's not how it works – they do not have to be part of any state, they are just not entirely sovereign. But thanks for not readding the category. Number 57 07:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- That isn't exactly true. This is a matter of legal technicality, but unless an area is Terra nullius is is a part of another sovereign state. The United Kingdom has two meanings. One, the Kingdom that is a Union of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The other is the internationally recognised sovereign state. Gibraltar is not part of the first but, technically, part of the second. AusLondonder (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)