User talk:Flicktokick

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Harlowraman 10:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Brian Clough Trophy
Hi. I am intrigued to see that you have deleted the background section that I added to the above page wholesale. In addition, you left the rather sarcastic comment that it was "largely irrelevant". As far as I am concerned an article should be readable as a single entity, and shouldn't require that you have to navigate back and forth just to get even the most simple background information. That section went much of the way to answering the questions that I had when I first came across the page, namely: why was this Trophy so recently set up, why Derby and Nottingham, and why Brian Clough? As for your comment about the tram, that section was intended to convey the information that the Brian Clough Trophy is just one of a number of comemorative namings that have taken place in both cities. The section was not long, it distilled the essential information into just two paragraphs, and it used a third paragraph to set the Trophy into proper context alongside the remainder. Your assertion that the information is largely (only largely, so you admit that you did delete some information not) elsewhere hides the fact that to find the rest of the information you would need to trawl through the very much larger pages on Brian Clough, Derby and Nottingham. Now, I admit that I am quite new to editing in any serious way, but it would seem to me that deleteing another's work out of hand, with no prior discussion, violated Wikipedia's "assume good faith" principle. I'd appreciate hearing your reasoning. Flicktokick 09:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There is nothing sarcastic about the phrase 'largely irrelevant'. A tram has nothing to do with a football trophy! Anyway, I possibly was too hasty in removing the information, for which I apologise. I think my edit summary did not help - the phrase 'largely irrelevant' probably should have read 'unencyclopædic'. A lot of the wording sounded more like it came out of magazine article than an encyclopædia. Phrases like 'historically have competed for prestige, jobs, investment' and 'perhaps the greatest rivalry of the last century' need references to prove them and words like 'Cloughie' should never be found in an encyclopæia. Perhaps the most worrying phrase is 'the inhabitants of Nottingham and Derby have long maintained a particular animosity for one another' - try replacing 'Nottingham and Derby' with 'France and Germany' and see how long it lasts on Wikipedia. Anyway, I take your main point and have restored your section, but made the tone more encyclopædic, which is probably what I should have done in the first place. My apologies. - Green Tentacle 16:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that makes a lot of sense. I'm still getting used to this tone factor, and I take your point completely. I would disagree with your statement that the animosity comment is worrying though. After all, it is true! I'm wondering how to get that point across while still conforming to this NOPV stricture? Flicktokick 16:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it's true in football terms, but it's certainly not true in general terms. Not everyone from Derby and Nottingham hate each other! I think the phrase 'Derby County and Nottingham Forest, football clubs located just a few miles apart, have long been arch rivals' is more than adequate. - Green Tentacle 16:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well firstly I never said "hate". The phrase "particular animosity" was carefully chosen to reflect the needling jealousy and one-upmanship that does exist between the two cities, on both sporting and civic levels. I agree that your phrasing describes the footballing situation, I was initially aiming to give wider context, but never mind. The wider context is needed to explain why Brian Clough's influence is greater than just sport. His campaigning on behalf of the Labour Party is sometimes creditied with having a disproportionate influence on the political landscape of each town, for instance. Anyway, so much for context. In additon to my previous comments, I've just noticed that you didn't remove my section, you just reverted all of my edits! Come on, if you wan't to claim encylopedic high-ground at least play the game properly and only remove what needs to be removed. Flicktokick 16:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I'm afraid the word 'animosity' means 'active hatrid', so that's what people will take it to mean! - Green Tentacle 16:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Two can play at that game ;-). It also simply means a feeling or spirit of hostility and resentment. I, personally, have always understoood animosity to be one step removed from outright hatred. More of a repressed, insidious emotion. You pays yer money... Flicktokick 17:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What is with you? I am trying very hard to assume good faith, but your actions are putting that assumption under a great deal of stress. The first game is still ten days away, so the competition can not yet be referred to in the present tense. Even if it is fairly soon, that does mean that your actions mean that the article will be factually inaccurate for more than a week! The article can easily be changed at the correct time, so why make it wrong now? Not only that, but yet again you have simply reverted my edits rather than adjusting the parts of it that you, personally, take issue with. Your actions mean that you have deleted relevant information, and the article is now gramatically askew, and the syntax is horrible. Flicktokick 21:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The Brian Clough Trophy is a trophy. It's fair to assume that the trophy physically exists, so it can be referred to in the present tense. It's just that the first match has not yet been played. Your other changes removed links from the lead and put the rules below the background, when the rules should come first, as they are more important. You also added information to sections that will have to be removed later (such as the date of the first match to the lead and a rule applying to just one match in the rules section). Ultimately, Wikipedia is an encyclopædia and the current version should, as far as possible, still make sense even if it is read much later (as it will be, due to other websites republishing the content). The grammar also works fine, unlike your version, where the rules section changes tense twice without explanation. - Green Tentacle 00:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * For the vast majority of sporting awards (e.g. FA Cup, Football League Cup, Winston Cup) the award is referred to in the abstract, and the physical trophy is merely the tangible expression of that. If you want to draw a parallel with the way that the Calcutta Cup is described (and after all I did bring that up) then to mimic this article the BCT one should read "a trophy that will be awarded". To date it has not been. Also, as I stated above, my reading of the press releases and news articles are that the trophy will be inagurated at the initial match. Essentially, this indicates that there is not yet any physical object named "The Brian Clough Trophy". It will only become so when officially decreed at Pride Park on the 31st. To state that everything should be in the present tense just because a bit of silverplate has been knocked out into a cup shape is wrong, and goes against previous precedent. Also, your assertion that the rules section should come first is a little strange, as most articles progress from generalities to specifics, they don't throw detailed information in at the start, then broaden to background, before becoming ever more specific with a list of winners! You need a logical structure. Start broad, focus in.


 * Secondly, well how about a few examples from the version you keep reverting to...
 * "is an football (soccer) trophy" - do I need to point this one out?
 * "trophy has been awarded" - no it hasn't.
 * "Matches are held" - ok, I missed this the first time, my bad, but you need "to be" in the middle.
 * "to Rugby union's" - choose: Rugby Union or rugby union, neer the twian and all that...
 * "July 31 2007" - Again, either: 31 July 2007 or July 31, 2007. Personally, as this is a UK competition I reckon British English usage is preferrable, so I'd go for the first, in line with the apparant common usage in all other football articles.
 * "  " - what's wrong with metioning that the first match will be ended on penalties if needed? This is highly unusual for a supposed "friendly" match.


 * I guess, in summary, I just don't see what your problem is with keeping this article in the future. You are talking about an event and an award that will be made in eight days time, the correct time to put this into present (and where appropriate, past) tense. Details may change before then, so the box thing seems highly appropriate to me. What mirror sites do is their own business and lookout, if they choose not to update their feed frequently then they can't expect to be up to date. Flicktokick 07:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please don't change the format of my talk page - it's very bad form. Right, the rules section needs to be first because that's more important than the background and what an average visitor to this page is likely to want to know first, especially given the unusual nature of the competiton. Both the FA Cup and League Cup articles have rules before their histories.


 * Your other points:
 * "is an football (soccer) trophy" - do I need to point this one out?
 * Oops. Changed 'an' to 'a'.
 * "trophy has been awarded" - no it hasn't.
 * Actually, the trophy has been awarded to the winner of every Derby-Forest match since it was announced - it's just that there haven't been any matches yet.
 * "Matches are held" - ok, I missed this the first time, my bad, but you need "to be" in the middle.
 * That's just present tense, as is the rest of the article.
 * "to Rugby union's" - choose: Rugby Union or rugby union, neer the twian and all that...
 * My mistake. Changed.
 * "July 31 2007" - Again, either: 31 July 2007 or July 31, 2007. Personally, as this is a UK competition I reckon British English usage is preferrable, so I'd go for the first, in line with the apparant common usage in all other football articles.
 * Though it's a misconception that there is an official British English way of writing dates, I'm really not bothered how it's written. It will still appear differently for each Wikipedia user, depending on how they have set their date preferences.
 * " - what's wrong with metioning that the first match will be ended on penalties if needed? This is highly unusual for a supposed "friendly" match.
 * There's nothing wrong with mentioning it at all, but a rule for one match should not be mentioned in the rules section, which is for all matches.


 * It just seems a lot of work to make everything future tense and then change it again. Nevertheless, I've changed the whole article to the future tense. Since you went to the trouble of writing such a long comment, you probably deserve your way for sheer effort. - Green Tentacle 13:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)