User talk:Green Tentacle/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 |
Archive 2
| Archive 3 →


Contents

English football league system

Hey, I'm curious why you reverted my edits on the above article. You gave the reason as "Revert as National league System page is a bit out-of-date". Could you point what in my edit was actually incorrect? Also... there was a lot of formating stuff (cutting down white space, making table rows alternately grey/white) which I think should've stayed, regardless of the content. Couldn't you have just removed any info you thought was wrong ,and left the formatting as it was? (I'm assuming you liked it, as you didn't give it as reason for your edit). I'm not wanting to start an edit war or anything so childish - I just want the article to be as good as possible :-) Tompw 00:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure if the National League System page is out-of-date any more. There was a time when it was quite out-of-date, but it seems to be better now (though I've not bothered checking all the leagues and divisions). Personally, I'm a fan of the virtical space and think that it makes the grid a lot easier to read (especially at lower levels). I'm also not too keen on it stating the promotion and relegation arrangements in the grid (that should be obvious from the way the divisions are physically positioned in the grid (though this becomes very hard from Level 10 and below) and, if necessary, explained in the text). Colour-coding-wise, I have no problem with the grey and white, but do you think it would make things clearer if it was colour-coded by league (so all the Football League divisions are one colour, the Conference divisions another)? - Green Tentacle 17:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I've checked leagues and divisions against the website linked to at the bottom, and they do seem to be correct. Consequently, I'm going to add them back in, because the extra info would improve the article. Colour-coding... I don't mind either way. Try out colouring by league, and see how it looks. As for the promotion/relegation stuff, the issue is more about what how many teams get promoted and how (playoff vs. automatic), rather than to which league. Tompw 23:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Now that you have done it, I have spotted quite a few inaccuracies, especially at Level 11. Frequently, for example, it will just name the league and not the division at that level (so it just says 'Wiltshire Football League', rather than 'Wiltshire Football League Premier Division'). A couple of the league names are also slightly out (it says 'West Cheshire Football League', rather than 'West Cheshire Amateur Football League'). Also, there's the issue of whether the division is called the 'First Division' or 'Division One' (we may as well get these things right). I also think it's important to have the sponsorship names listed at the lower levels (as they tend to be more dominant) - mimicking the Level 9 layout allows this easily.
One of the reasons I've never bothered adding all of these levels is because of the time it would take to sort out these niggles. Also, of course, everything's changing next season anyway. - Green Tentacle 23:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Reason for change?

Hello! I hope you are feeling fine. By the way, I would like to enquire about some of the recent edits you have made. Why did you change the title of the articles, Sussex County Football League Division 1 and Sussex County Football League Division 2 to the numbering format? I feel that the articles should be named as Sussex County Football League Division One and Two respectively. This is to produce consistency with the other league and division titles as well. If some divisions have the numbering format and the others have the wording format, there would be inconsistencies in the article titles. I am sure you do not want that to happen, right? If the official name of the leagues are in the numbering format, we should create a redirect page to the wording format. If you are not favourable to my opinion on this matter, we should then conduct a poll about this. Cheers! --Siva1979Talk to me 17:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Good evening. I'm very well, thank you.
I changed the division names to use digits as they are the official names of the divisions (according to the official Sussex County Football League website) and it is Wikipedia policy to use official titles. Hence we see Grease 2 using digits, while Men in Black II uses Roman numerals. Consistency between the names of leagues/divisions doesn't come into it because, like films, there isn't any consistency between the names (see also Division One v First Division and League v Football League).
I do agree that there should be a redirect, but I feel Division One (and, indeed, First Division) should be the redirects, while Division 1 is home to the article. This therefore satisfies the need for consistancy (desirable), but more importantly adheres to the need for the official title to be used (essential). - Green Tentacle 21:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello! I realized that you gave an explanation for your reasons on your talk page after changing the titles to the wording system. You should have replied in my talk page. Nevertheless, the damage has already been done. Anyway, if the official title is Division 1 then, does this apply to ALL the divisions in the English football league system? If so, I do not mind changing ALL the titles to the number format. Or is only some of the divisions having this format, while others are having the wording format. If this is the case, then you are right. Some of the divisions having the official title in the wording format should be strictly adhered to while the other divisions having the number format should also be adhered into Wikipedia. Then, redirect pages must be created so that users do not accidentally create or unable to find these titles. Thus, your reasoning makes absolute sense to me and I acknowledge that I may have made a mistake in changing these titles too soon without consulting you. In any case, if you had replied to my talk page, this problem would not have happened. I am going to revert my own edits back to yours. I think that the discussion has now been closed and I would search for similar anomalies in the division official titles. If you feel like responding, do so in my talk page. Thanks! --Siva1979Talk to me 20:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, just to let you know, I have just reverted my own edits back to yours. So there is no chance of an edit war happening! --Siva1979Talk to me 20:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, thank you for clarifying this with me. Your reasons on this matter is sound and to the point. I guess we should start making the necessary changes on these leagues and divisions and create appropriate redirect pages for them. The important point to note is that this will be done on case-by-case basis. --Siva1979Talk to me 01:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
In my experience, what tends to be the version used in league communication changes (sometimes within a document) and there is no point in dogmatically changing "One" to "1", or "Division One" to "First Division". The Football League, for instance, in the days of four Divisions, sometimes referred to "Division 4", "Division IV" or "Fourth Division" interchangeably. I don't think how a division is titled on a website should be taken as the Gospel "official name". I have a Sussex County Football League Handbook from 1994-95 (yes I know its 12 years ago) where the divisions are referred to in words throughout - e.g. "Clubs in membership of Divisions One or Two shall be Full Member Clubs and all the other Clubs in membership of this league shall be Associate Member clubs". I've now got this page on my "watchlist" so please feel free to reply here if you wish. - fchd 06:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I accept that there are going to be inconsistencies, but football leagues are now much more aware of branding - even compared to twelve years ago (The Football League are certainly particular about what their divisions are called now). I think if we know that a league prefers one name over another, we should use it. For many minor football leagues, their website is their most readily-available publicity material and so is as good a source as any for the official titles (unless a Wikipedian does happen to have a copy of the current rules lying around). - Green Tentacle 13:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

North and South

I noticed that you added a comment about the division of the league cup into north and south sections some of the clubs in the northern section are actually located further south than some of the southern section clubs. Do you know if that's true for the forthcoming competition? I seem to remember last time Hereford were in the LDV cup they were in the northern section, despite being some 60 miles south of Shrewsbury, who were in the southern section.
 SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  00:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is true for this season's League Cup. Notts County are in the southern section, despite being located further north than both Derby County and Nottingham Forest (just), who are both in the northern section[1]. - Green Tentacle 17:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. What a fantastic link!  SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  17:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

DTT in the UK

Hi again. You asked why wait to put Virgin Radio in the list, and it's only fair that you know my reasoning: Film4 is using a LCN (and is receivable), and Virgin isn't yet. That's all. It's not that important, so I'll leave it as it is. RobWill80 18:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong here?

Can you tell me why you have taken issue with some of my edits recently? Take your last revert of one of my edits: the small matter of the "www" in the Film4 article. The URL given in Channel 4's promotional material doesn't have the "www" attached either. Yet the article on Channel 4 has the whole address. I will assume that you do read that article, since you have edited it before. I will also assume you will be civil enough to give a response to a civil question: why the double standards? You mentioned that your Film4 link goes to a different webpage than mine. Who is to say that you gave the correct one, when channel4.com's redesigned film section does not link to your page? RobWill80 23:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I've not taken any issue with any of your edits recently. Last week, I changed the link on the Film4 article as filmfour.com did not seem appropriate, as the channel is not called 'FilmFour' any more. Today, you changed it back to www.filmfour.com, pointing out that the relaunched Film4 has been using that URL onscreen. I completely agree, except the URL that they've been using onscreen is filmfour.com, not www.filmfour.com. Therefore I changed it to filmfour.com. And that's it. I really don't see what the problem is here. - Green Tentacle 00:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay. I apologize for thinking there was a problem, when there wasn't. I would ask that you at least consider that the link I gave has more information on channel content and features, rather than the promotional material and the "holding" FAQ (as the URL says) that the current link has. Seems more relevant now that the channel has launched. RobWill80 00:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The link should be to the offical site. I would say that it is the site physically located at http://www.channel4.com/film/ffchannel/ because that's where filmfour.com (the address given out by Channel 4) directs to and it is the site you get if you click the Film4 link in the top left corner of virtually every page on the Channel 4 site. At the moment, the article is definitely wrong because someone's changed one of the links on the Film4 article to the generic Channel 4 Film site, which is definitely not the Film4 site. - Green Tentacle 14:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I can't say that I agree with your choice, solely on what’s available on the page. The other link does look to be more informative on content, rather than promotion of the launch. On the other hand, I am not in a position to debate the point. As you quite rightly say, your link is the URL given in the adverts. In regards of the link being changed again, I'm sorry that I can't be of any help, but you'll have to take that up with the person responsible. RobWill80 15:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I never said that the most recent URL change was anything to do with you; I was just making an observation. I also never made any conscious choice about which page was better - I just changed it to the official address being given out by Channel 4. If you think that it should point to another page, then change it. You don't need my permission. - Green Tentacle 18:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't trying to appear defensive in my last comment. I know that you were not accusing me of anything. You did mention GarryMc's edit, and my comment was literally meant as advice. Maybe the admins should find a way to add proper smileys to the talk pages. :) Anyway, the point I have is that I'm only trying to help the project. If there are differing views on accuracy, then it should be as useful to the reader as possible. A little like the ITV/ITV1 argument, really. Just my opinion, but I think the features in the "www" link would be more useful. RobWill80 19:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I've changed the bottom link to the "www" redirect, and left the one in the infobox as it is. Doesn't harm to have both links. RobWill80 19:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it's nothing like the ITV/ITV1 argument: the difference there was that we were right and they were wrong :-) - Green Tentacle 20:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:ITV

You might want to take a look at the template, Mr 86.131.192.170 I think has taken it a bit far, what do you think?   Keithology  Talk!  18:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Damn right he has. I've reverted the monstrosity before it takes over the world! - Green Tentacle 19:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

BBC radio after switchover

I have written to the BBC to confirm that they will not be removing any radio services after switchover. I will re-edit when they re-confirm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Briantist (talk • contribs) 20:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite understand. I wasn't aware, and have never suggested that, the BBC are going to remove any radio services from digital terrestrial television after the digital switchover. What I do know is that BBC Radio 1, BBC Radio 2, BBC Radio 3 and BBC Radio 4 are currently broadcast on Multiplex A and there are no plans for them to move. As Multiplex A is due to become a one of the 'commercial' multiplexes after the switchover, these radio stations will not be on the PSB multiplexes and therefore will not be available on all the relay transmitters like the channels on Multiplexes 1, 2 and B (including Five and S4C, which are moving). - Green Tentacle 21:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Three-revert rule

A minor point, but I'd like to make it: you implied in an edit summary of digital terrestrial television in the United Kingdom that I had broken WP:3RR. I did not, though Briantist did. I'm always very civil about these things. Frankly, I don't like being dragged into these things, but I just don't understand why Brianist keeps changing the article to imply that BBC Radios 1-4 are on a PSB multiplex when they are not. (I also think the Ofcom report says that there will be three PSB multiplexes and three commercial multiplexes after the switchover, but I'm willing to let this go.) Anyway, I'm rambling. Sorry :-) - Green Tentacle 18:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right that you didn't break WP:3RR, so I apologise. When I wrote that, my interpretation of it was that three attempts to revert an article within 24-hours violates Wikipedia policy. I must have missed the part that said "more than three reversions". You did come close, though. If an earlier revert of yours came just 2 hours later, it would be 4 reverts. So be careful. :)
Anyway, WP:3RR wasn't my top concern, because neither of you were trying to intentionally damage the article - you both believe that your own arguments are correct. In my own stubbornness, I've broken it a few times myself, believing that. What I didn't like was the fact that this was disruptive behaviour (no matter who is right or wrong). I thought the two of you needed to stop, gather your evidence, and discuss the matter without disrupting the article (we have both done this over the national name of ITV1, remember? I still say we were right!).
Regarding the subject of the reverts, my understanding is that you are correct... but I don't claim to be an expert. That's why I think it is important that you both hear what each other has to say, and clear this up. RobWill80 20:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)