User talk:Andrwsc/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents

Canada at the Olympics

I was tired of seeing various Olympic tables with Canada have a redlink, so I created a page for Canada at the Olympics which I originally just intended to be a redirect to the Summer and Winter pages, but I got working on it and made a real page. I modeled it after the US at the Olympics page, but added a few things like a table of Flagbearers (which I merged into the medals table) and a list of the Top 10 Canadian medal earners. If you could take a look at the page, it would be much appreciated. -- Scorpion0422 20:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've just started work on the full set of "...at the Olympics" pages, some of which will be a merge of the existing "...at the Summer Olympics" and "...at the Winter Olympics" pages for each nation. As per Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics consensus, we're going to try to have only a single top-level summary article for each nation. If you want to merge some of the content from the Canada pages yourself, I would appreciate the help! Thanks, Andrwsc 20:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I think seperate articles for nations that have been huge and long lasting players in both sets of Olympics, like Canada, the States, Russia, Germany, etc should have pages for Winter and Summer. But, I'll help out with the merging of some of the smaller Olympic nations. I'll see what I can add from the Summer & Winter pages, but basically all they are is a medal count of how Canada has done in the various sports, which I think is useful. -- Scorpion0422 00:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I think there are several nations for which both summer and winter articles could be developed, but I think the main "Nation at the Olympics" articles should be more than a disambiguation page in those cases.
A few months ago (and several thousand edits ago...) I created a work plan for what I think we should do, and got some consensus from Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics for this plan. See User:Andrwsc/Olympic article list for details. I think the first step is to start with the top table (higher priority nations) and move the Summer article if it already exists. Some copy-editing is certainly required to reflect the change to a combined article.
As for the tables of medals (by Games and by sport), unless they already exist and you are working on moves/merges, I'd advise against spending any time on creating new tables. I have a spreadsheet of all medal totals (per-Games, per-sport, and per-nation) that I painstakingly created and verified. It can automatically generate the wikicode for those tables (e.g. see East Germany at the Olympics), so I can whip those up very quickly and be assured of mistake-free output.
Similarly, I have created another spreadsheet that helps automate the creation of lists of medal winners (e.g. see Jamaica at the Olympics), so all I have to do is cut and paste the output from the IOC medal database website into my spreadsheet and it reformats to that style automatically. I intend to compile complete lists of medalists for the nations that have won a "manageable" number (as listed on that user-space worklist).
Thanks for any help with this project! Andrwsc 18:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ireland national football team (IFA)

Hi again Andrwsc, the flag used by the all-Ireland IFA team was Saint Patrick's Flag, not the Ulster Banner as was recently changed. Both teams purported to be all-Ireland teams - the "nationalist" all-Ireland flag is the tricolour as per FAI, and "unionist" all-Ireland flag is St. Patrick's Flag hence it was used by the IFA. It was only after the split that the Ulster Banner (a flag specifically of Northern Ireland) was used by the team, as before then they were Ireland, not Northern Ireland.

The changes otherwise were good and necessary, but {{fb|Ireland|IFA}} should show St. Patricks's flag, only {{fb|Northern Ireland}} should show the Ulster Banner. --sony-youthpléigh 21:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sony, did you see the discussion I had with User:StuartBrady at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Flag Template#Football aliases for Ireland? We agreed that the saltire was the most appropriate flag for the long period where the IFA was the only all-Ireland team. We were looking for a way to use the standard templates for the period where the IFA and FAI had parallel all-Ireland teams. For those years, it didn't seem logical to use the saltire for both teams, and it didn't seem balanced to use the tricolour for the FAI-controlled team and the saltire for the IFA-controlled team. Stuart felt that a distinction needed to be made between the representation of the IFA team for these years vs. the early years.
Now, I'm no subject matter expert here (I'm just a "template jockey"!), but your explanation of the "nationalist" vs. "unionist" flags makes sense. Do you have a source for what flag the IFA actually used prior to 1950? I'll revert my last change, but I'd like to see some more discussion on this issue to make sure we get it right. Thanks! Andrwsc 22:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
My comments were from the point of view of "what flag makes the most sense", but given that there's still a distinction, "what they actually used" is indeed more appropriate. The distinction between pre-1936 and post-1936 was only a side-effect of the distinction between the two post-1936 all-Ireland teams. —StuartBrady (Talk) 22:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I left a "logical" argument on the country data page. I read it differently, however, the pre- and post-1936 the IFA continued as it was (hence the Saltire) all the way until 1953 when it was told it was Northern Ireland. What change was that a rival association organized from the Free State (and using the tricolour) emerged, and both ran simultaneously for a period. --sony-youthpléigh 23:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Despite any verifiable sources to emerge, both your arguments in this talk page discussion are reasonable and logical to me, so I think we can consider this a closed case. Andrwsc 00:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Flagicons

Thanks for trying Agathoclea 15:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You may have noticed that I had to revert back about 12 hours ago. The CSS class did work — but wierd things happened if a flag template was used as a numbered parameter inside another template. I will try to debug that and get it all working! Andrwsc 15:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes I noticed when it did not work and I checked your recent contributions. I have posted a link of your discussion on the VP to someone on dewiki who might take look at the idea as well. Agathoclea 19:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks! Andrwsc 19:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Mixed team

That's probably true... I'm happy to revert if people think that's overkill. Chanheigeorge 00:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted my edits concerning those of the mixed team, and those categories are speedily requested for deletion, so everything should be okay. Chanheigeorge 02:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I think that makes the most sense. Andrwsc 15:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

What to do with condominia regarding flags

What does one do with these entities regarding flags and the templates that use country data templates? Such is the case of New Hebrides, both the French tricolor and a defaced (british) blue ensign were used. We cannot use the current Vanuatu flag for instances that occurred before its inception, but usage of just the French tricolor is also incorrect. What to do when two flags need to be portrayed? --Bob 22:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. You use the variant parameter to select which one you want. Or are you looking for a way for a single template call to produce two flags side-by-side...? Could you please explain the problem better? Thanks, Andrwsc 22:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
New Hebrides flew two flags with equal status as the colony as both France and Britain formally agreed to share equally sovereignty and exercise their rights jointly, without dividing it up into 'national' zones - thus, two flags were flown with equal status. the French tricolor (for France) and a defaced blue ensign (for GB). i.e. two flags need to be shown side by side without displaying the name twice. This refers to derivative templates such as ru and fb, which use country template data. --Bob 22:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, there is no easy way to make the flag template system produce a pair of flags in a single template call, and I wouldn't want to make any change to that effect for just this one special case. My advice would be to use {{flagicon|France}}{{fb|New Hebrides|1953}} to produce Flag of FranceFlag of New Hebrides New Hebrides, for example. Andrwsc 22:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Northern Ireland flag usage

Hi Andrwsc. I appreciate your comment. I agree with you that this mediation is not really following a path that is likely to end up with an agreeable compromise. Both sides seem to be bent on out-shouting each other. They're editing the talk page faster than I can read it. I am going to try to take what you said into account. Hopefully, this case will end up with a satisfying result. --דניאל - Dantheman531 23:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope so too! I'm glad you don't think I'm trying to get in the way here. I spent some time on Talk:Northern Ireland trying to facilitate a compromise for the infobox on that article, thinking that as a detached observer (I live half-way around the world from Ireland, so I'm not biased in either "Nationalist" or "Unionist" direction), but that effort didn't get very far... Andrwsc 23:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
If I may comment on this, WP:MOSFLAG will solve most of the problems related to the issue of flag useage, as for the infobox on the Northern Ireland article that has already been long solved, the infobox dosent show a flag and has a link to the Northern Ireland flag issue which explains the issue, and any future problems that may arise can be dealt with by WP:MOSFLAG as well. So hopefully things will settle down now.--Padraig 00:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure which is a bigger misrepresentation of Wikipedia guidelines — your claims that usage of the Ulster Banner constitutes original research, or your assumption that Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags) is sufficient to solve the mediation at hand. Andrwsc 03:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


Hi Andrwsc. I shan't be offended if you don't want to answer this, but are you contactable off Wikipedia, e.g. by email? My email address is in the last userbox on my userpage if you want it. — ras52 21:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I just enabled email via wiki preferences. Andrwsc 21:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. — ras52 21:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

GBR/UK

Your comments weren't aggressive. I just tend to get stubborn about some things sometimes (something, I'm not proud of), and that stubborness is the result of my being naive about some things sometimes (something further, I'm not proud of). GoodDay 21:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Country data Myanmar

Sorry, didn't realize my change was a problem. Perhaps the template should redirect to Template:Country data Burma? Chanheigeorge 05:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That still wouldn't solve the problem since the alias value would be Burma, and that would generate links to Burma national football team etc. The "right" way to fix it is to create a bunch of arguments like link alias-football to the template, and make sure that no other altlink usage is broken. I had been monitoring the discussion on Talk:Burma to see if the page move would be reversed before going to all that effort, but I'll see what I can do. Andrwsc 06:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Y Done (I hope!). I've updated Template:Country data Burma to reflect all the articles that would have used "Myanmar" as the alias value, and updated all the redirect aliases to use that template. I don't think I missed anything, but I'll keep an eye on it. Andrwsc 18:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Roque 1904

Hi! I am sad, that you have reverted my edit on this page... I know, that not all of my ideas are the best and I know also, that I am doing sometimes to much. But I only wanted to give this page the same style than I have done to other Olympic pages. I know, that the Roque-page looks strange, but there are some more pages from the 1904 Olympics. E.g. Tennis - all medals for the United States and only one competitor not from the United States. So maybe there is a possibility for the Roque-page... Thanks and :) Doma-w 13:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess my opinion is that a "one size fits all" approach to these "Sport at the year Olympics" pages can often lead to questionable results. For example, I think it is overkill to include a medal table for sports that only have a single event, or also to include a summary table for that one event. I certainly recognize your effort at consistency (and I usually endorse that view quite strongly!) but in this case, I think that we only need a single "view" to present the three medal winners. Also, the explanatory prose text in the introductory paragraph is a logical place to simply say that all players were from the USA; using a whole section with a single bulleted item in a list also seems unnecessary and awkward.
On a related note, I wonder if you would reconsider the subcategories of Category:Olympic roque players. Since this sport ever appeared at one Games, and only included players from one nation, and we don't have any source that identifies anybody else beyond the three medalists, it seems to me that the subcategorization is also overkill. What do you think? Andrwsc 21:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. Of course "roque" is a problem... Still my idea was only the give the page the same style. In my opinion this page looks in the currect style like a sub. It looks like, that most parts are forgotten, therefore I wanted to show that there is no more...
There must have been more than three competitors, because the official reports says: Jacobus 5 won - 1 lost, Streeter 4 won - 2 lost, and Brown 3 won - 3 lost. I am not a roque expert, but in my opinion this score in impossible with only three players. At least a fourth player is necessary for this score!?
Of course, for "roque" these cats are overkill! But please have a look from the other side. User Neier has done a great work and recat a hugh number of Olympic competitors. Therefore the three roque-players can not be included in the Category:Olympic competitors for the United States and also not in the Category:Competitors at the 1904 Summer Olympics. Both have a parent cat tag.
Well, my problem is not the "medal table". But the pictogram on the right side and the "medal summary" in horizontal style was the common style for all the Olympic pages up to now I thought? My idea with the "participating nations" was only to show that we to not know all. Kind regards and :) Doma-w 00:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the props. I obviously think that a consistent approach to the categorization is a good thing, regardless of if the subcategory has 1 or 100 entries. Not only does it make it easier for category maintainers to identify articles about swimmers, wrestlers, etc which should be further subcategorized (by normally making the parent cats empty, any article there would need to be re-catted), it also aids category traversal. Roque is a special case, as there was only one nation; but, in other situations, I have created a Olympic xyz of nation category for just one person, add added the category to the Olympic xyz by nation cats. Neier 01:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining the category structure you two have been working with. I had not noticed the subtlety of the other parent categories, but it makes sense to me now.
As for the page format for the 1904 roque competition, I still think that my edit is the best starting point. You are correct that most pages in the "Sport at the year Olympics" start with a medal summary table, but I think that sports that only consist of 1 event (maybe 2) are exceptions to the rule. Basically, I don't think you need a "summary" of a single event — just using the standard format for event pages is sufficient. A really good example of that point is Ski jumping at the 1952 Winter Olympics. There was only one event that year, so the page looks more like one of our single event pages (like Weightlifting at the 2004 Summer Olympics - Men's +105 kg), with the list of medalists at the top followed by the detailed results.
I didn't realize that we had some results available for that event, so I've added them to Roque at the 1904 Summer Olympics. I think the references section needs to be fixed up a bit too. But I hope it's now clearer what I have in mind for single-event sports. I think this presentation is simple and effective. Andrwsc 17:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The name "summary" is not imported to me... The ski jumping 1952 and the weightlifting 2004 - and now also the roque 1904 - are good examples. Still I do not know why the medalists can not be shown horizontal on these pages? The horizontal style can only be used for pages with more than one event, but not for pages with one event? Strange... Please allow me also to ask: You have deleted my edits on the roque page, because "... it is pointless to include three tables that essentially say the same thing - we know the three medalists...". Now you have added two tables - saying exectly the same. :) Also ski jumping 1952 the "medalists" and the beginning of the "results" is only a duplicate. So actually the "medalists" are unnecassary. BUT I do not want to delete them, I still only want to restyle them to a horizonal version so that the difference is higher.
After creating 3000 Olympic competitors and correcting same more (specialized on names including Chinese and Korean), creating more than 1000 categories; also specialized on team sports (field hockey, water polo, handball, basketball) and restyled several "Sport at the year Olympics" pages (boxing, sailing, equestrian, rowing) I really thought I am familar with - but it isn't... I feel insulted that my edits were reverted like vandalisam. There are still only a handful of Olympic editors, but it is still impossible to communicate. And the reactions are throughout negative. It seems to be better to take an Olympic rest...
By the way I really respect your work! You are the headmaster and you revert all the mess and have a look at the large number of Olympic pages to keep them in form. Thanks for that! Kind regards and :) Doma-w 12:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Martin, please don't feel insulted by my revert of your edits! There is absolutely no doubt that you are making some wonderful contributions to the Olympics WikiProject, so I hope we agree that both of us are editing in good faith.
Here are my thoughts about the format of these articles. First, I think it is important that every per-sport article and every per-event article start with some form of summary near the top. That summary provides a quick "at a glance" list of medalists. For the per-sport articles that span multiple events, that summary is the familiar {{MedalistTable}}, also using {{DetailsLink}} as a navigation technique to get to the individual event pages. For those event pages, the summary format I prefer is the vertical table using {{OlympicGoldMedalist}} etc. On a previous WikiProject discussion, I gave some reasons why I think that format is better for summarizing a single event:
  1. It looks better when teams of more than 1 person is involved. An example is Canoeing at the 2004 Summer Olympics - Men's K-4 1000 metres. Compare that to the table row for the K-4 event on the parent page and I think you'll agree that listing the medals vertically and the team members horizontally (instead of the other way around) looks better for a single event.
  2. It looks better when the list of medalists isn't a simple set of 1 gold, 1 silver and 1 bronze. Some examples of that are combat sports with two bronze (such as Judo at the 2004 Summer Olympics - Men's +100 kg) and many of the gymnastics events, which often end up with combinations like 2 gold + 1 bronze, 1 gold + 2 silver, 1 gold, 1 silver, 2-3 bronze, etc. Using the vertical format allows each medalist to be distinctly enumerated, compared to the way in which we present these results in the multi-event or multi-Games tables (like on List of Olympic medalists in gymnastics (men)).
So that leaves us with the interesting situations of per-sport articles with only 1 or 2 events. With one event, I am absolutely in favor of making it look like a standard event page. With two events, I am mostly in favor of keeping everything on one page (if it fits), but still have the standard multi-event medal summary at the top. Triathlon at the 2004 Summer Olympics is a perfect example of that.
Yes, I agree that on the roque and ski jumping pages cited earlier, the medalist summary section is immediately adjacent to the results section and looks a bit redundant. That's not always the case. For the combat sports (like the judo event page), the results are organized in a "bracket", so in that case it is convenient to have a distinct summary at the top. For the racing events (like the canoeing event), the results are usually organized with heats, then semi-finals, then finals, so the medalists aren't seen until you scroll to the end of the page — the summary section at the top is helpful there too.
So those are my thoughts. I don't want to seem too overly protective of this, but I do believe it is effective. I am a firm proponent of consistency, but I also realize that a "one size fits all" approach may not always work. Thanks again for all your hard work! Andrwsc 17:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Andrwsc! Thanks for your reply. Of course I know, that you gave some reason on a previous WikiProject discussion! These two ({{MedalistTable}} and {{DetailsLink}}) are perfect no doubt. But {{OlympicGoldMedalist}}... I don't need them... Please allow me to show you my heads for the pages you have listed:

For canoeing 2004:

Gold Hungary Hungary (HUN)
Zoltán Kammerer, Botond Storcz, Akos Vereckei, Gábor Horváth
Silver Germany Germany (GER)
Andreas Ihle, Mark Zabel, Björn Bach, Stefan Ulm
Bronze Slovakia Slovakia (SVK)
Richard Riszdorfer, Michal Riszdorfer, Erik Vlček, Juraj Bača
Gold Silver Bronze
Hungary Hungary (HUN)
Zoltán Kammerer
Botond Storcz
Akos Vereckei
Gábor Horváth		 Germany Germany (GER)
Andreas Ihle
Mark Zabel
Björn Bach
Stefan Ulm		 Slovakia Slovakia (SVK)
Richard Riszdorfer
Michal Riszdorfer
Erik Vlček
Juraj Bača

Isn't the second version easier to read?

And many more examples for team sports: Field hockey at the 1928 Summer Olympics, Basketball at the 1936 Summer Olympics, Water polo at the 1948 Summer Olympics, and Handball at the 1972 Summer Olympics. Or see also Rowing at the 1912 Summer Olympics and the three detail links with five or nine medals in the fours or eights competition. All have the same style on the event pages as well as on the main page.

Or for Judo 2004:

Gold Japan Keiji Suzuki
Japan (JPN)
Silver Russia Tamerlan Tmenov
Russia (RUS)
Bronze Estonia Indrek Pertelson
Estonia (EST)
Bronze Netherlands Dennis van der Geest
Netherlands (NED)
Gold Silver Bronze
Japan Keiji Suzuki
Japan (JPN)		 Russia Tamerlan Tmenov
Russia (RUS)		 Estonia Indrek Pertelson
Estonia (EST)
Netherlands Dennis van der Geest
Netherlands (NED)

Also very easy to create and with "width=" it can easily be adapted.

For Ski jumping 1952

Gold Norway Arnfinn Bergmann
Norway (NOR)
Silver Norway Torbjørn Falkanger
Norway (NOR)
Bronze Sweden Karl Holmström
Sweden (SWE)
Gold Silver Bronze
Norway Arnfinn Bergmann
Norway (NOR)		 Norway Torbjørn Falkanger
Norway (NOR)		 Sweden Karl Holmström
Sweden (SWE)

Here I think it is important to use the horizontal style, because then this one-sport page looks more like all the other "main" pages...

For weightlifting 2004:

Gold Iran Hossein Reza Zadeh
Iran (IRI)
Silver Latvia Viktors Scerbatihs
Latvia (LAT)
Bronze Bulgaria Velichko Cholakov
Bulgaria (BUL)
Gold Silver Bronze
Iran Hossein Reza Zadeh
Iran (IRI)		 Latvia Viktors Scerbatihs
Latvia (LAT)		 Bulgaria Velichko Cholakov
Bulgaria (BUL)

Of course both styles are good and nice and helpful and... But we both are familar with all these pages and for us it is easy to read them and so on - but why to confuse a unfamilar reader with different styles? The style on the main page (Weightlifting at the 2004 Summer Olympics) is horizontal so why the medalists on the event pages can not be shown horizontal? I think, that it would be nice to start all the detail-pages with the same horizontal head. So the event-page start with the summary, that is seen on the main-page. Very important for the Judo pages please have a look at the main page: Judo at the 2004 Summer Olympics. Why we want to surprise the reader with a different style after using the detail-link?

The Triathlon at the 2004 Summer Olympics is perfect. I would only move the pictogram in the same line than the contents to avoid the white space and I would add a "participating nations" :)

My last question for today: The Template:FlagIOCmedalist show the nation in italics, but the Template:FlagIOCteam doesn't. Don't we want to change this? E.g.: Equestrian at the 1936 Summer Olympics The individual medalists have the nation in italics and the team medalists have their nation in "normal" letters.

Many thanks and kind regards! :) Doma-w 01:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, you know, if you are suggesting that we replace all instances of the vertical single-event medalist format, then I think this discussion ought to be moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics, as it would require consensus from more people than just you and me. Most of the 2004 pages have been updated to use the standard templates, and we had consensus for that event page format.
Some other specific comments to your message:
  1. I don't see a huge difference in the "simple" examples you gave for horizontal vs. vertical layout. I think the "oddball" examples are where you see some bigger differences. For example, look at Athletics at the 1908 Summer Olympics - Men's pole vault. That page currently has "old style" formatting (i.e. templates not used yet), but I think the horizontal layout looks bad compared to what a five row vertical table would look like.
  2. Please use relative spacing instead of absolute pixel widths when you are formatting tables. For example, style="width:12em" will scale depending on the browser font size selection, so is much better wikicode than width=180, for example.
  3. The format style for {{flagIOCmedalist}} was based on old consensus from the WikiProject. Again, I'd bring it up there if we want to revisit that choice.
Cheers, Andrwsc 22:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey again! Of course I know, that we had to discuss this decision on the Olympic talk page. But I think and I know, that your opinion is very important. If you support a horizontal version I am sure, that this version will win. :) To replace all is not my problem, still my problem is that we have different versions, many different versions! This brings me back to a former discussion about a style guideline...
1. My offer: (or "silver" with none)
Gold Silver Bronze
United States Edward Cook
United States (USA)
United States Alfred Carlton Gilbert
United States (USA)		 Canada Edward Archibald
Canada (CAN)
United States Charles Jacobs
United States (USA)
Sweden Bruno Söderström
Sweden (SWE)
Or another example Athletics at the 1912 Summer Olympics - Men's pole vault
Gold Silver Bronze
United States Harry Babcock
United States (USA)		 United States Frank Nelson
United States (USA)
United States Marc Wright
United States (USA)		 Canada William Happenny
Canada (CAN)
United States Frank Murphy
United States (USA)
Sweden Bertil Uggla
Sweden (SWE)


2. Of course I will do this! I have never seen this possibility. I am open to learn.
3. I only thought, that it would be nice and better to have both in the same style. I had no idea that we need a big discussion about that.
Kind regards and :) Doma-w 00:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
What have I done wrong? Doma-w 13:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Um, I'm not sure what you mean here — I see nothing wrong with your work! With respect to this discussion, I would say that you and I have probably exhausted the topic on my talk page, and now it's time to get some broader opinions from the WikiProject. I still advocate the vertical table format for single-event pages, and the horizontal summary table for multiple-event per-sport pages. But let's get some more editors involved. Our WikiProject looks quiet lately, but I think it is still being monitored. Cheers, Andrwsc 19:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your answer. Doma-w 02:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA. As you are aware, it was closed with "no consensus". Since your vote was one of the reasons why it did not succeed, I would like to personally address your concerns so that I can reapply successfully. Your concern was 'I was not happy with the frequent "experimentation" done with the common site javascript code'.

Again, I apologize for any disruption caused, and will be sure to test future edits to common.js before submitting them. At the very least, all of the edits were approved by other users. And, if I were an administrator, I actually would be able to correct disruptive bugs in the scripts even more quickly, as I would not have to wait for another administrator to apply fixes for me.

Please let me know if this resolves your concerns. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess there were a couple of issues with the common.js episode that caused me to cast an oppose vote. In addition to the disruptive (to me, anyway) tweaking over 2-3 weeks, I was also put off by your comments that those 38% of users who browse with IE5.5 or IE6 should just upgrade or switch to Firefox. I feel that those of us who work on the "plumbing" of Wikipedia, like common javascript, CSS, or widely used templates, ought to behave as though we were "servants" of the majority rather than the other way around. We need to be patient and responsive to requests, and be very mindful of the "big picture" for any implementation change.
Another comment that might be helpful is that when you next go through the RfA process, you might want to resist the urge to respond to every single oppose comment. I've heard that some people are also put off by that sort of defensiveness. That advice was given to me during my RfA period.
I hope these comments are viewed as constructive feedback and I wish you success on your next nomination for adminship. Regards, Andrwsc 21:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The PNG issues cannot be truly resolved without upgrading or switching. That's just how it is. We can only work from our end; we cannot fix the bugs in IE6, only work around them. We try to accommodate IE6 as best we can, even creating an IE6-specific script to improve (but not fully correct, as that is impossible) PNG behavior on IE6. Yet users will honestly receive a better browsing experience both on Wikipedia and elsewhere by either upgrading or switching.
In working on the IE6 script, I did not ask that the first revision be thrown in and then just tell IE 5.5 and 6 users "tough" if there were problems. Instead, I listened to reports of the problems and worked with other users, mainly Edokter, to improve the script. The end result is a highly functional, fast script that greatly improves PNG display on IE6.
So, have I addressed your concerns? —Remember the dot (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are asking of me. You have responded to my comments about a past experience, but your RfA nomination is also closed. If I see some different behaviours in future edits, then I will take that into account for a future RfA nomination. Regards, Andrwsc 17:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I would like to reapply for adminship, hopefully sucessfully. Since your vote was one of the reasons my past RfA did not succeed, I would like to know what I have to do so that you will not vote against me again. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I would change my opinion if I noticed a difference between now and then. I don't often participate in RfA discussions — only for editors who I have come across in my own editing experience. What I look for are "admin-like qualities" that help us build the encyclopedia. This is perhaps a loosely-defined concept, but for me it includes demonstration of cooperative, civil behaviour, effective work in improving the "inner machinery" of this project, and some way of assessing trust. I think you demonstrate a lot of this already, but as I said on the RfA page, I thought you were a bit careless in all those successive implementation changes (which caused a lot of disruption for me personally, as I was working on image-intensive pages with IE6), and I thought you were a bit uncivil with your response about upgrading. (Perhaps uncivil is far too strong a word for that, but it did strike me as a moderately inappropriate attitude for someone working on the site-wide interface code.) I'm not looking for explanations or justification from you right now; I'll be looking for how you work on this project in the near future. Hope this helps, Andrwsc 17:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

World Amateur Boxing Championships

You have made four full or partial reverts to this article in just over 24 hours - this IS edit warring. PLease stop it.--Vintagekits 22:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Irish Amateur Boxing Association - glad to see you sniffing around and doing a bit of research - I will educate ya yet me bhoy!--Vintagekits 22:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Heh! You know, I have never set foot on Ireland (only seen it from 37,000 feet), but I have learned a tremendous amount in the past few months from all this Wikipedia work! I hope you recognize that I may be one of the few people involved in those debates who is neither British nor Irish, and therefore has absolutely no political bias either way. Heck, I didn't really know what unionists or nationalists were until I read about them on Wikipedia! Therefore, I hope you can see that my main motivation in all these discussions is ultimately to improve the encyclopedia, with consistency and accuracy. Despite my occasional appearance on the "other side" from your position, please never assume that I have similar views as many of the other editors you have debated. Cheers, Andrwsc 22:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Grand.--Vintagekits 18:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Template Talk:ROC

Thanks for your comments on Template Talk:ROC - they're much more cogent and useful than mine, and I agree with your view there. Cheers!  Folic_Acid | talk  18:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Andrwsc 18:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Using "CAT" as a country code

The project says: Alias names are available for almost every nation listed in ISO 3166-1 alpha-3, the list of IOC country codes, and the list of FIFA country

Catalonia is recognized in some IOC sports (but has no Olympic Comite as England), so it seems fair to be included in the Alias. It's not FIFA recognized but its recognized in 3 IOC sports. If you look the 2007 Korfball World Championship, Catalonia is the only team that can't use the Alias. --Baluard 23:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that "CAT" is not a country code that appears on any of those three official lists — you just made it up. There is nothing wrong with the wikicode on that korfball page. Andrwsc 23:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong, but all the teams use the Alias except Catalonia that will not use because you have deleted. If you look the world championship page [1] you can see that the CAT is used. It's not the FIFA, but it's an IOC sport. I can't understand where's the problem. You never heard about it before ? But it exists, with other sports recognaisance. And it will be known if it appears on more places. So I can't understand why cant you accept the CAT if you accept ENG, GIB or WAL.
People must be flexible, and if Catalonia is recognized in some IOC sports it seems fair to allow the CAT, to use in the wiki articles where the catalan national teams compete officially. --Baluard 00:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't think it's an issue of "fairness" or "flexibility", and it most certainly isn't an issue of my "acceptance" or not. It's simply one of consistency and maintainability. There are about 600 country data templates that have no shortcut alias, but not long ago, several dozen "invented" shortcut codes were in use, and it was chaotic. At least now we have a consensus, that only official ISO, FIFA and IOC codes shall be used, if any. Even so, I believe it is vastly preferable to spell out many template names. Which do you think is better wikicode: {{flagcountry|DZA}} or {{flag|Algeria}}? Both do precisely the same thing, but clearly "Algeria" is more well known than it's country code "DZA". I think the same is true for obscure codes like "CAT". Yes, you've provided a source that uses it, so I retract my comment about you inventing it. But do you honestly think that editing 2007 Korfball World Championship to change every occurance of {{flagicon|Catalonia}} to {{flagicon|CAT}} actually improves the article?? If anything, I would do the opposite, and change {{flagicon|TPE}} to {{flagicon|Chinese Taipei}}, for example. If you really must create that alias, I am afraid it will set a precedent for creating many more non-standard "country codes". It's already a big enough chore to maintain the thousand or so templates for Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template without having to deal with another few hundred... Thanks in advance for considering this. Andrwsc 04:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I understand that you prefer to use only standard codes to avoid thousands and thousands aliases. But I think that Catalonia is a singular case. It's not admitted in the FIFA, but it's admitted in 3 IOC sports (korfball, bowling and raquetball), and other non IOC sports. Your criteria is to include the FIFA. But, why not the 3 IOC federations that accept catalonia, with the CAT code ?. I think that there are not many cases like catalonia, and it could be accepted as it is admitted in 3 IOC sports (but hasn't an Olympic comitee). Including in the requirements "countries in IOC sports federations".
If anyone continue doing articles for the official competitions where the catalan national sports teams participate, I think that could be useful to allow the CAT code, as the rest of national sport teams in that articles.
I think that my arguments are reasonable, but I'll accept your last decision after you read this message. --Baluard 15:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's not my decision — it's a matter of WikiProject consensus. We settled on the list of official ISO, IOC and FIFA codes because that seemed most logical. Those are the codes that are most widely known to people working on those articles. I don't really want to make a big deal out of this, and if you feel so strongly about the necessity of having this alias, and given that we have at least one external source that uses that code, I'd support the addition of "CAT". Andrwsc 17:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much. (Here's another source [2]) --Baluard 09:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


Little context in Bermuda at the 1964 Summer Olympics

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Bermuda at the 1964 Summer Olympics, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Bermuda at the 1964 Summer Olympics is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Bermuda at the 1964 Summer Olympics, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot 05:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine

I'm just letting you know that I do not intend to edit war over the article. I was doing some recent-change patrolling, and I mistook the changes for vandalism as the diff appeared as though a Nazi flag had been added to the 1903 entry, when it had actually been added to 1936. I'm sorry for the disruption caused. Epbr123 (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any single edit is to blame for that. Looking at the edit history and the talk page shows a long dispute over whether that flag (historically correct yet offensive to some) should be shown. Today was especially bad for edit-warring for some reason. Hopefully a pointer to the guideline MOS page will help those editors reach consensus. Cheers, Andrwsc (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I am a late contestant. I just wanted to say that I was only appropriating the correct flags. Barring Nazi flags, the site called awards during the West Germany as part of the 100 year old German Empire? I agree we either amend and correct the flags to the countries at the time received or remove them all together. My edit fixed the incorrect citations, it was then reverted for some unknown reason. That was my only edits to the pages. I am following wiki of not misleading the public and giving the most accurate data as possible.--Jab843 (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC).. I would like to point out that none of my edits were malicious or fabricated in any manner and that they be replaced unless the consensus is to remove the flags all together. My edits were reverted to incorrect citations.--Jab843 (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think your edits are the most appropriate. But there was lots of edit warring even before you made them! I just want things to settle down for a couple of days for all involved editors to work it out. Andrwsc (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Ireland in Olympics

Hello, Andrwsc, i found Ireland use Ireland flag in Olympics, perhaps i need to use field hockey flag for Ireland in Olympics are? Or need to change as Ireland flag? I have no idea how to use Ireland flag in field hockey template, i need to change to {{fh|Republic of Ireland}} to get the problem solve.

Anyway, i can accept any decision from you, you control Olympics area, so if you want Ireland flag, i can do it. But first i think the country data should be modified little bit. --Aleenf1 04:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure that I "control" any part of Wikipedia!! But I hope I can help. Certainly at the Olympics, you want to use the Irish tricolour for their team events, as that is the flag that the Irish team compete under. Of the set of special flags used for all-Ireland teams in Template:Country data Ireland, field hockey is the only Olympic sport. I would say that using the Republic of Ireland template is probably the right one to use anyway, but I would just use {{fh|IRL}} for Flag of Ireland Ireland. That's less typing that having to write out "Republic of Ireland", and the IOC country code for Ireland is "IRL", and the correct flag is used, so it all works out. Cheers, Andrwsc (talk) 04:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
OK. Cheers. --Aleenf1 10:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Template talk:Fb

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Fasach Nua (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Andrwsc (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Template talk:Fb

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.Fasach Nua (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Template talk:Fb

I notice you protected this page after reverting it to your preferred version. I think this is a poor call as admins should never take administrative actions in issues where they are involved. I invite you to unprotect the page and list it on WP:RFPP if you think it should still be protected. You should probably be blocked for 3RR and/or lame edit warring, but that's neither here nor there. Stifle (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. I will unprotect immediately. Andrwsc (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
As a follow-up, there should be no need to re-protect that talk page, so I'm certainly not going to request it. Page protection and/or user blocks are supposed to be preventative actions, not punitive actions, and I'm hopeful that User:Fasach Nua will take heed of the advice about signing talk pages that he/she has been given from multiple editors and leave things be. Andrwsc (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hungarian flag

Hi! Can you please be so kind and have a look at the Hungarian flag for the Olympic years 1920 to 1936? It now shows: , but isn't the right flag ? Many thanks and kind regards! :) Doma-w (talk) 22:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Martin, that is a long-standing, and often-reverted issue for sports articles involving historical Hungarian teams. The article at Flag of Hungary has been modified many times over a long period, and there are still no solid citations about whether the plain tricolor was used or not in the 1920-WWII period. The best references I've found for which flags to use on the Olympic pages are often the official reports themselves. In the post-WWII period, most of them have photos of the teams marching in the opening ceremonies, complete with the flag bearer. That was certainly how we refuted using Flag of Hungary for the 1960-1988 Games. That flag simply wasn't seen in any of the photos of the official reports during that time. And yet, I still think a lot of FIFA-related articles use that flag for Hungary in those years. Now, back to your question about 1920-1936. I just had a look at the 1924 report (downloaded from here), and while that report is too old to show photos, they do have illustrations of the flags of the top three nations in each sport. Look at page 262 (page 260 in the PDF file) for fencing and you'll see a plain tricolor used for Hungary! (By the way, this report is also a great source to prove that Argentina used Flag of Argentina instead of Flag of Argentina — as is also claimed in many football articles — in that time period.) So to answer your question, I don't think any changes are necessary for Template:Country flag IOC alias HUN, since I think the plain tricolour is correct. Regards, Andrwsc (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Very interesting! I know I have books about the 1932 and the 1936 Games, maybe I can find there some more info. Hopefully I can find them...
This evening I have found another interesting flags, please have a look here: [3] and here: [4]. Are these flags not used for English wikipedia? I can not find them. Especially the first one from 1953-1959 can be interesting for the FIFA World Cup qualification (1954 and 1958) and the FIFA World Cup 1958 when Wales was qualified? The article Flag of Wales says, that these flag was granted official status in 1959, so which flags can be used for the FIFA World Cup articles in 1954 and 1958? Kind regards and :) Doma-w (talk) 03:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I have never seen those flags before, but they are interesting! I would suggest posting a message to Talk:Flag of Wales or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales and see what you get. Cheers, Andrwsc (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, thank you, I will try to post a message there. I have also taken a look at my books. There are also not the best photos, but it looks like, that the Hungarian flag was a plain tricolor. Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 00:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Badminton template

Thank you for creating badminton team template. I recently experimenting on Country data South Korea to make South Korea as Korea only, but it didn't work. Hopefully you can do it for me. Thanks again. --Aleenf1 08:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually it work, but not work on "big" templates, hopefully you fix it. --Aleenf1 08:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, minor technical problems, actually it work. Thanks again for create all the team template. --Aleenf1 08:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome! I see you've figured out how to change the output name and wikilink. The only thing you need to be aware of is the input parameter. You can use KOR or South Korea, but do not use Korea, even though it might be logical to think that would work. There is a Template:Country data Korea distinct from Template:Country data South Korea — the "Korea" one refers to the pre-1948 split and uses an older, different version of the flag. Cheers, Andrwsc (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Classification of admins

Hi Andrwsc. Please consider adding your admin username to the growing list at Classification of admins. Best! -- Jreferee t/c 23:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Flag template

Sorry about that Gnevin (talk) 08:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Flag mediation

Andrwsc, my comment wasn't directed at or about you, this mediation involved myself and Astrotrain as representing each side in this discussion, and whilst you did provide sources they where mainly relating to sport use which was not in dispute. Astrotrain on the other hand failed to provide any WP:RS to justify the context in which he wanted to use the banner.--Padraig (talk) 07:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You did not mention Astrotrain by name; you used "they", meaning a plural number of people. Since Astrotrain and I were the only two people debating you, how could I not interpret your comments as including me? Andrwsc (talk) 07:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
My use of they was in reference to the pro-banner editors who throughout the mediation where still trying to edit war on the issue, sorry for not making my origional comment clearer, I appreciate your attempts to resolve the issue but I think you were trying to resolve it from a different angle from what is the main concerns of the two sides, the pro-banner side are not interested in what is fact, they just want to display what they see as their Banner, this became quite evident during the straw poll on the Northern Ireland talkpage a few months back, when they opposed the inclusion of the Union Flag being shown in the infobox.--Padraig (talk) 08:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
In that case why have I accepted Andrwsc's guidelines while you continue to reject them. I have been the only person to provide compromises and suggest ways forward, while you have continued to edit war across these articles and receive an official warning for such actions. It has been pointed out that you have not compromised, or even attempted to do so- and that is why the mediation has failed. Astrotrain 13:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Astrotrain what guidelines, Andrwsc put forward the idea that we devise a guideline to deal with the issue, something I have no problem with, but nothing was decided to to format or content, so that is still something that can be worked on. On the issue of your proposed compromises you wanted a open policy to include the Ulster Banner anywhere regardless of your failure to provide WP:RS that is not an option.--Padraig 15:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
That is false, I never wanted an open policy where it could be used anywhere. I gave compromise solutions for restricitng its use that are now incorporated in Andrwsc's guidelines (which you have rejected). Astrotrain 15:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, Padraig, I accept that, and thanks for saying that you appreciate my efforts. As for the "pro-banner side", and specifically your repeated comments to Astrotrain about WP:RS, I would have to say that I haven't seen any evidence from him specifically in the past couple of weeks of the behaviour you describe. I don't know if User:Setanta747 has been edit warring again recently, but I thought he was the most aggressive in terms of banner usage across a wide variety of contexts. I know you and Astrotrain have a long history of clashes, but perhaps you could both open your minds a bit and look for positive behaviour from each other instead of assuming the worst. Andrwsc 16:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Andrwsc in regards Astrotrain he has numerous times made false allegations against me accusing me of removed sourced material from articles, yet when ask to provide diffs to support these claims has never been able to do so, he has also tried a couple of times to smear me in the mediation so I find it hard to AGF when it comes to him, Setanta747 is another one that seems determined to continue edit warring although he has quitened down lately, a number of these editors have also been using anon IPs to edit war, and make personal attacks on [5] and [6] which I find funny as I am not nor have I been a member of any political party in over 20yrs, nor do I even currently live in Ireland.
I'am prepared to help you in your proposal to put together a guideline on the proper use of the Ulster Banner within Wikipedia if you wish to continue that idea, but I think the mediation has failed, this means the outcome decided on the troubles arbcom will now be used where any editor that continues to edit war or continuiously inserting non-RS material will be dealt with by probation, 1RR per week and esculation blocks or banning. Hopefully it will not come to that.--Padraig 23:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for that, Padraig. I'd like to start a guideline page, with at least the items that the majority of both sides can agree on. At a minimum, we need to curb the editing of what I deem the "radical" extremes, such as the pro-UB folks who insist on using it everywhere (such as unnecessary navbox decorations) and the anti-UB folks who cannot even accept things like Flag of the United Kingdom Belfast, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom in a list of cities. If we can get the "middle 80%" to agree to as much as possible, that's still a positive result. I'm probably going to wait a few days to get some energy to start a draft guideline page... Andrwsc 23:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Andrwsc, I have no problem with the use of the Union Flag as shown in your example above - although I don't necessary agree with the need for flagicons in infoboxes in general - or having the Union Flag in the infobox of the Northern Ireland article, the main objectors to that would be from the pro-banner folks, I personaly don't like the Union Flag but I accept that it is the current official flag and would support its use as long as the Ulster Banner is not used. When you have time to start a draft guideline, send me a link or email the draft to me and I will give you my opinion on it and we can start from there.--Padraig 00:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with you with respect to the infobox usage. I was a sporadic contributor to the draft version of Wikipedia:Manual of style (flags), and I'm in favor of the removal of the singular instances of flag icons because they don't add value. Where they can be helpful is on lists or tables, and the example of Belfast I gave was on this edit. Actually, it's a good example of what I had hoped the mediation would result in — something that one side doesn't like but is willing to accept. If we had enough of those (from both directions), we might have succeeded. We might still yet.... Andrwsc 00:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Andrwsc, remember astrotrain was complaining about the Ulster banner being near the bottom of the article in List of British flags, well earlier today I moved the Historical flags section to near the top of the article, but its he is not happy about [7], theres no pleasing some people.--Padraig 00:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that. It was a head-scratcher for me too. Perhaps he is objecting to characterizing the UB as only a historical flag, and I can appreciate that viewpoint, but to just revert your section move without explanation was a bit puzzling. I don't know if you saw my edit to List of Northern Irish flags, where I put the UB in its own section, distinct from (and beneath) the "Official flags" section, but above the "Others" section. I also added references that cite both the non-legal status and the unofficial FIFA, et. al. status. So far, nobody has reverted that edit, so maybe it is acceptable to both sides. If so, perhaps a similar treatment could be applied to List of British flags. Andrwsc 01:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I seen your edit on list of Northrn Ireland flags, thats been done before, and they edit warred over it, personaly I don't like that solution as the Ulster banner status is no different to the rest of the flags in the other section. I wouldn't accept that solution to List of British flags, the flag is historical in the context of that article and shouldn't recieved any different treatment then any other historical flag in that section. Astrotrains revert made me laugh when I seen it.--01:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Andrwsc, as you know, this discussion was prompted by the improper use of the UB. When this was challenged, it resulted in edit warring. Now the policy of appeasement is over. There are certain articles were the UB can be correctly used, and there are those were it can not. Were it is used incorrectly, that is, when it is used to represent Northern Ireland officially, the policies of WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR become relevant. I apologise if I appeared unreasonable during the course of the discussion.--Domer48 23:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Domer48, thanks for the apology, I really appreciate that. I would like to apologize to you for getting a little too "hot" myself in the most recent messages. As the mediation has closed, I responsed to Fennessy on his talk page with a (hopefully) objective summary of my position, so you might want to look at that. I've also started to be WP:BOLD and implement some of my own recommendations, such as a change to List of Northern Irish flags and removal of all flags from Template:United Kingdom constituents and affiliations. I trust you'll find those edits likely to be acceptable to both sides, which is what I am striving for! Andrwsc 23:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack

Hi! I noted your suggestion, but I did not really want to be drawn into the situation. However having now received an uncalled for comment from the user concerned:- I have done as you advised See:- Personal attack. With an additional message placed here Richard Harvey 01:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Your use of AWB

To "update" the flag templates at Allies of World War II is inserting inappropriate flags and country links. Please do not use it on that page. Thanks. Grant | Talk 07:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I presume you are referring to this edit. So which one(s) are inappropriate? No links were changed at all, and the only flag change was the incorrect Puerto Rico flag, which I changed because the article on the Flag of Puerto Rico states From 1898 to 1952 it was considered a felony to display the Puerto Rican flag in public; the only flag permitted to be flown on the island was the flag of the United States. Which changes are you objecting to? Andrwsc 07:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Flags & Nobel lists

I'm just curious how to managed to remove the flags so quickly...? Are you using some special software, regex find-and-replace, or something else cause that seemed far too quick to have been done manually. –panda 20:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, sheepishly I admit to just using search and replace in Windows notepad for that! Nothing fancy at all. Andrwsc 20:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I was hoping you had some new revolutionary technique for dealing with this kind of stuff cause removing the flags is a lot of work that I would much rather avoid. Thanks for taking the initiative to do it for one of the lists! –panda 20:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland flag template

Hi, following your recent contribution to WP:SOCCER, my article page User:GiantSnowman/Articles is still missing the Northern Irish flags. GiantSnowman (talk) 14:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, when I look at that page, I see all the flags. Did you try the instructions at Wikipedia:Bypass your cache? That's the only thing I can think of, because the template usage on your page looks perfectly normal. Andrwsc (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I followed the instructions, to no avail. Probably means there's nothing wrong with the template but with my interent instead - no worries, it's not a major annoyance. GiantSnowman (talk) 17:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, sorry I can't help! Andrwsc (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Never mind, thanks anyway! GiantSnowman (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Air force ensigns

Thanks for sorting out Template:Air force. Any chance you could add the Royal Australian Air Force , the Indian Air Force and the Pakistan Air Force ? Thanks. Greenshed (talk) 00:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. Andrwsc (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Today's request is for:

Thanks again. Greenshed (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Done (mostly). All are in place except for the older Canadian flag. I will need to do something special to make it work with {{air force}}, as the wikilink is different. The same problem exists with the navy, by the way. I will work on that tomorrow or Friday. Andrwsc (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Please would you add:

Thanks. Greenshed (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work on this. Please would you add:

Many thanks. Greenshed (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: flags

Thanks for letting me know, I'm reverting everything right now. 68.193.198.41 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Civil air ensigns

Any ideas what could be done about civil air ensigns? The ones I've found in the Wikipedia are:

Plus I know there are ones for Ghana, Pakistan, Guyana and I'm sure that there are others. Greenshed (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, well, here's the thing: are they really needed by the flag template system? I'm looking at the image links for each of these, and they aren't used in icon form anywhere. Were you intending to add them someplace new? In the Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template work, we're not trying to create an uber-complete catalog of flags for every country, state, etc. We're just trying to make it easier to generate them in icon form, if that's how they are being used. We don't have to have every possible flag variant bloating the size of these templates. Andrwsc (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
They might possibly be used in the infoboxes of airport articles but given their relatively low profile (compared to civil ensigns such as the Red Ensign) it might be a controversial move. That said, each nation only has a few ensigns and so their inclusion wouldn't set a precedent for an uber-complete catalog of flags. Perhaps this question could be re-visited as and when they are used in icon form. Greenshed (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Flags on Portals

Will you please drop it, I can list several more portals which use flags, rather than maps. The maps are ugly, besides Portal:Bulgaria and Portal:North West England are both featured, the only one of your example is Portal:Scotland. Please, I've been working on this portal, let it go. Qst 01:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, sorry, but I can't. This is not just a minor aesthetic disagreement. Using map images instead of flag images in that navigation section isn't going to hurt this portal from reaching featured portal status, but I believe the converse is true. As you may have seen elsewhere, the use of any flag to represent Northern Ireland is vehemently opposed by a group of editors for POV reasons. Similarly, the alternative of using a map for N.I. and flags for the rest is also an unacceptable POV to a different group of editors. It implies that N.I. is "different" from England, Scotland and Wales, and gives undue weight to the flags issue. In the long debate in Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Northern Ireland flag usage (which ultimately failed, alas), one of the few things that both sides agreed to was that neutral images like those maps were acceptable in navigation boxes, etc. as a means of distinguishing the four constituent countries of the UK where some image was desired. That's why I modified all the UK-related portals. Only you are disputing this for the England portal (but for none of the others), so I ask you to take a step back from this one that you have been working on, look at the bigger picture, and think of what is in the best interest of this encyclopedia. Thanks, Andrwsc (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query On 19 December 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Egypt at the Olympics, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, now that's cool, thanks! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Medal target

You are more expert in Olympics section. However, is that medal target are allow to insert into upcoming 2008 Games? With the criteria of reliable and verifiable sources. For example: 2007 Southeast Asian Games, personally i object this because it is more like predict rather than one fact, and a lot arguments already been done, the person who really defend it said he will bring this format up to 2008 Olympics, so i need POV from you. Thanks! --Aleenf1 06:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, after looking at the 2007 Southeast Asian Games article, the medal targets are clearly sourced, so there is no problem with their inclusion on Wikipedia. However, I think the summary medal table is the wrong place for that information. Not only does it make the table formatting look terrible, but I think those comments are best placed on the individual "Nation at the 2007 Southeast Asian Games" pages. Also, I think the information is best presented as prose text comments, not just as a number in a table. That way, additional commentary can be given. If this issue came up for the 2008 Olympic pages, I would certainly argue strongly for the approach I suggest here. Hope this helps, — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually i had suggested before in article talk page, put that information in "Nation at the 2007 Southeast Asian Games", so it won't look ugly, but it came a strong object from editor who add it, so i dunno how to say about that. However, thanks for your POV. --Aleenf1 06:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)