User talk:Calexico/archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips to help you get started:

Good luck!
Jrdioko

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).

[edit] Disambiguation

Hi! thanks for the warm welcome, it was very kind...I have a little question concerning misambigs - could you take a quick look at Golden Boot. Someone put a note on the top of the page to point out there was something else with a similar name. Would I be right in thinking that the best thing for me to do is to change Golden Boot to a page linking to a new page called something like Golden Boot(football) with the same content and also a link to the Golden Boot awards? I appreciate any feedbackl as I still have a lot to learn. calexico 00:41, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC) (thanks for this tip too!)

Hello. Take a look at Wikipedia:Disambiguation for all the information you'd ever want to know about that process (and more). Basically, there are a few different ways to "disambiguate" pages. Some consist of a page with a list of links to other articles and some (like the one you mentioned) simply list other articles at the top of the page (when one meaning is much more common than the others). Hope this helps, and let me know if you have any other questions.  — Jrdioko (Talk) 01:14, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] WBA speedy update

You marginally beat me on the WBA update! Great efficiency! calexico 13:25, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And I'm not even a WBA fan! Welcome to Wikipedia... - Madw 13:32, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Game

Thank you for your information concerning my question on linking language pages to talk pages. I am still fairly new, 4 days or thereabouts, and still am learning...

I see you may be interested in chess from this page, I wrote a page about a book by Stefan Zweig "The Royal Game" and wondered if you might take a look and make any alterations...

Calexico let me know what you think! Calexico 22:56, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi - no problem with the interlanguage thing. I can't help a great deal with The Royal Game, as I've never read it, but I've tweaked it a little to fit in with Wikipedia conventions a little better (it's conventional to put the title of novels in italics, for instance) and made a small correction (Zweig died in 1942, so he couldn't really have written it in 1944 :). Looks like a nice article - keep up the good work! (By the way, I'm curious - have you chosen your user name after the band, or the place, or something else?) --Camembert

[edit] M&S

What is the point of the move to Marks & Spencer (plc)? Mintguy (T) 11:17, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Actually, my mistake. I am moving it back now, I am working on the list of companies in the FTSE 100 - however Marks & Spencer plc is a subsidiary of Marks & Spencer Group plc, so I'm moving it back. Very foolish of me... Calexico (Talk) 11:27, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why everything to do with M&S shouldn't be in one place at Marks & Spencer Mintguy (T) 11:33, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In essence, Marks & Spencer (or Marks and Spencer) is the name of the brand, whereas the main listed company is Marks and Spencer Group plc, I am trying to find out what diffentiates Marks & Spencer Group plc and Marks & Spencer plc, all I know at the moment is the latter is a subsidiary company of the former, but I believe that the latter only runs the stores whereas the former has a whole raft of companies underneath it...I notice that we don't currently have a specific convention on naming of companies. Legally the 3 examples above are separate entities...Calexico (Talk) 12:14, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In the 2003 Annual Report for Marks & Spencer Group plc it shows that Marks and Spencer PLC is a 100 % owned subsidiary that is also involved in retailing. Calexico (Talk) 12:42, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] stubs on subjects that already exist

You seem to be creating a lot of stub articles on subjects that already exist. For example, there are already articles on BAE Systems, Boots and Barclays. Please check more thoroughly that a subject is not already covered before starting a new article. David Newton 17:01, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi David - thanks for your message. I have been creating many pages which appear to already have better information elsewhere perhaps. The reason for my so doing, is to beef up the financial info on the 'pedia (an area of speciality). I have created pages for the legal financial names of these companies, which often differ slightly from the more-recognisable names. In one of your examples, you mentioned BAE Systems - the legal name of the financial company is "BAE Systems plc", and "BAE Systems" is mentioned in the annual report as being a subsidiary of this. Such as with Marks & Spencer plc and Marks and Spencer Group plc - they are 2 entirely separate entities. My plan is to add a standard header to the top of the pages I am creating which will inform people where to go for info on the particular information they require. It would however be incorrect and misleading to have a link from the FTSE 100 page to BAE SYSTEMS, as this is a different entity to the company listed at the LSE. I'm interested to hear any suggestions you may have on how I can improve my plans, I do feel that the business info we have is very negligle and would like to improve it with public domain info from annual reports such as some basic fundamentals, board structure, executives etc... Calexico (Talk) 17:47, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. I guess that it comes down to the level of detail that is wanted in an article and how much distinction should be made between the legal entities. Most people would not consider them different, and I did not consider what you said. If you are to create such articles, they should be linked to the main articles, and the structures of the companies should be explained. I suspect that you will get further points like that ones I made, although now that you have explained what you are doing, it appears to make sense. David Newton 18:16, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
More detailed business info is good, but after spending some time with WP I think you'll find that finely-divided articles have a way of disappearing into the weeds and never being seen again. (Does a WP article that is never read really exist? The philosophers ponder... :-) ) In general, it works better to add the content to articles under the familiar names, with a section explaining the legal entities, and only split if the article gets really really long. Either way, everything is fixable, but empirically it's less work all around to split as needed than to create stubs that languish. Stan 16:56, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)