User talk:Ilikeeatingwaffles/Archive 4

Fenerbahce
Great job cleaning up the article, your work is appreciated :) 68.81.67.201 (talk) 13:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Jo on loan
Actually the loan was confirmed yesterday. But since then Man City seem to have unpublished the article, but not officially retracted it. Paul   Bradbury  10:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The thing is, there's nothing on the Everton site, and they would be far more keen to publish this once confirmed. I would suspect that the link you've put there was something that was written in anticipation and accidentally published too early. Dancarney (talk) 10:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, fair enough, which is why I havn't undone your edit, but it was on the site for a while (and reported as such in some major papers) hence the fact that the edits happenned, it wasn't just wishful editing (as it is often). Paul    Bradbury  11:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Top work on all those Jo revisions btw Dan RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 08:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Douglas Costa
It would be great if you could issue warnings when reverting unsourced speculation and vandalism. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I usually do, but there were loads of IP users chucking all sorts of nonsense in and it was more work than I could be bothered with.Dancarney (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Galatasaray S.K. (football team)
Hey man, I noticed that you created this article yesterday, but do you think it's really necessary. Galatasaray S.K. already covers the football team, so unless you were planning to change that to cover the overall organisation, I think that a separate article for the football team is a bit unnecessary... – PeeJay 09:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There's some discussion about this on the Galatasaray S.K. talk page. The problem with the article as it stood was that there was no good distinction drawn between the multi-sport club as a whole and its football section. The article mainly seems to be about the football team, but there were odd bursts of the other sports. All the other sports have their own articles, so the plan was to get Galatasaray S.K. to be an article for the multi-sport club as a whole. I took inspiration from the set-ups for articles on the Greek multi-sport clubs Olympiacos and Panathinaikos. Dancarney (talk) 09:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Moved from my user page
Please do not remove this image, stewart downing has moved to aston villa, I work for the aston villa website. Please feel free to google it. Someone keeps replacing my image with an old one in his previous teams strip therefore hacking the page please can you stop the person doing this or if it is you, please respect the fans and stop changing it or I will happily report you to wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danwilson82 (talk • contribs)
 * I am fully aware that Downing has moved to Villa. However, the image you have added does not have its copyright ascertained. If you work for Villa, you should realise that the club almost certainly owns the copyright on the image, and the club itself must give permission to Wikipedia for their property (the image) to be used. Start of by having a lok at WP:COPY to see Wikipedia's policy. Also, please sign your posts with ~ at the end of any comment. Dancarney (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Danwilson82
"DO NOT CHANGE THE PICTURE YOU TIT". Very persuasive and relevant argument. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

De Montfort Park
Noticed you'd moved stuff around a bit under the premise of 'tidying up'. I can't agree that the article looks 'more tidy' than previous, and would say it actually looks 'less tidy'. None of the changes you've made seem to be MoS edits, and further I always understood that according to MoS the pictures for the stadium should be within the infobox, hence that's where I placed them. have not 'undone' your edit, but would ask you to reconsider some of the 'tidying' you have done. DJhinckley (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely a single image should suffice for the infobox? They certainly don't need to be in the thumbnail form, though. I don't think that such a small ground needs separate sections for each of its stands. The featured article City of Manchester Stadium follows the changes I made, I think.Dancarney (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Kit body Ahly09Home.png
whats the wrong Dancarney if i use adidas logo and the club logo ? EBSawy (Talk)


 * It's possibly an infringement on their copyright. Besides this, the kit you have uploaded contains more detail than is necessary for the football club info box. The image is meant to be a representation, not an exact copy. Dancarney (talk) 10:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Fenerbahçe S.K.
I didn't care the kit pictures.I just care to edit the idiotical edits by the vandalists of IP users.Rangond (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to this edit that you made. Dancarney (talk) 08:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As Turkey-based clubs, there are kit photos with Adidas logo on both GS and BJK articles.Why don't you remove them?Rangond (talk) 12:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No there aren't! Dancarney (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hang on, maybe you mean the infobox pictures, rather than photos. I have certainly removed such things from Galatasaray before, and it looks like I'll have to again. Dancarney (talk) 13:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes
I also have come to the conclusion that the infoboxes are less suited to some articles than others - though immediate exclusion from all settlement pages seems hasty to me. After all, there is no reason to not have more than one infobox on a page, and where a major scheme is attached to settlement (possibly Ipswich's Transport for the 21st Century Scheme when we can find out more about it) would be a time that a settlement could have a scheme infobox in its article.

In many articles, such as Stowmarket, the infobox was detrimental to page layout without bringing anything new to the article - I hope in future that that issue can be solved, but for now I feel your assessment of the situation has been correct. However, schemes that deserve infoboxes but do not have their own page should still have an infobox if the impact on page layout is slight enough to warrant one when compared to the notability of the scheme, in my view at least.

As a last point I ask that when you remove the infoboxes with maps in them, that if possible the maps remains on the page as maps of the transport schemes are a great boon to those who are interested in them and having one that is open to be reproduced and distributed, rather than the council produced ones that are under crown copyright, is very useful.

EricITOworld (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that looking at these things on a case-by-case basis is probably the most useful. Some schemes are major enough to warrant their own page, some are significant enough for considerable mention on a settlement's article, and some are barely worth noting. I agree with your point regarding the maps. Dancarney (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I work with Eric and we are keen where possible to have the scheme information available in a structured way so it can be sucked out for further analysis by DBPedia and Freebase. I realise that Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopedia and as such if shouldn't be bent to do something else, however I am looking for a way to hold the information in Wikipedia in a way that enhances its primary function as well. I have explained my thinking on the Future Infrastructure Project talk page. Could we possibly explore the issue more on that page? The main point of discuss is schemes that are notable as sections but not as articles or where there is no benefit from splitting the section out - can we devise a small infobox that holds the information but which is not too intrusive. PeterEastern (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Northern Ireland programme on Goodison Park
What copyright status would you recommend? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBigJagielka  (talk • contribs)  18:47, 30 November 2009  (UTC)
 * I'm not totally sure. is probably the closest, but the template states that it's for an image that's used in an article "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question." It could be the case that image won't be usable in the Goodison Park article. Dancarney (talk) 09:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Offshoot Films
Hi Dan,

I noticed that you reverted my edit to Ipswich High School stating that it was advertising. I did not include the information about Offshoot Films in order to advertize the company; only two articles currently link to Offshoot Films. Less than three incoming links renders an article an orphan according to the guidelines about orphans, so I was trying to add a link from another article and Ipswich High School seemed like the most appropriate choice. Do you feel that the information I added can be rephrased so that it doesn't read like an advertisement? I do not believe that the substance of the information contradicts the guidelines about Wikipedia not being advertising.

Neelix (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that including the names of companies that have provided services to a school is worthy of inclusion on a school's article at all. Dancarney (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Dan,


 * How would you feel about including a sentence about how the school's students have studied filmmaking? The link to Offshoot Films could be in the citation and not even mentioned in the text of the article. I just don't want the Offshoot Films article to be an orphan.


 * Neelix (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It really seems that you're trying to shoehorn in links to the Offshoot Films page.If the company has been in existence for 25 years then surely there must be something more notable than this? Dancarney (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Dan,


 * The only thing I'm trying to do is de-orphan an article. From what I can tell, Offshoot Films has worked on two films of note, and both link to the Offshoot Films article. As you have pointed out in your edit summary, I read the website incorrectly. The company has not been around for 25 years; it just employs people who have been working in the film industry for 25 years. Considering the company has only been around since 2006, I haven't been able to find anything more notable than this. Do you object to the suggestion I made about linking in a footnote on Ipswich High School?


 * Neelix (talk) 18:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I do object to the inclusion on the Ipswich High School article. I don't think that this is any more notable than including the name of an outside company providing school dinners, unless I'm missing something more notable that has occurred.Dancarney (talk) 09:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * On re-reading I realise you're proposing linking the company name within a footnote, not the main article body. I think that should be fine. Dancarney (talk) 09:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

S.S. Lazio
And what's the problem if there are some details? It's even better istead!!

And this details, are not the sponsor, but are simply the Coccarda Italia, that is the symbol that attest that you won the Coppa Italia in the previous season.-- A ndrea 93  (msg) 16:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is 1) it looks cumbersome and 2) if you read Template:Football kit (as I suggested) you will see (and I again quote)

"Do not create patterns for minor details on a kit, the template is for showing basic team colours. It is not supposed to be an accurate drawing of the kit."
 * My bold there. The Coccarda Italia is a minor detail. Not sure why you're mentioning sponsors because I didn't. Dancarney (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi
First, I just want to thank you for fixing the Juventus kits, because I'm a long time Juve fan and I wanted to correct those kits for a long time but didn't know how. I just checked the last version before your's and then I compared it to the correct version and saw some major changes to the kit (other than removing small details) in them such as color changing of socks in the second kit and left arm white strip of the third kit. Could you try to fix those because my edit didn't work. Thanks for your time. JuventusGamer (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Current version

Revision 329074374


 * How odd, I can't get it to work either. Those socks remain resolutely white! Dancarney (talk) 09:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Car park details from Ipswich and Cambridge transport articles
Please see talk page for Transport in Ipswich for my justification for the including of car park information, including capacity and sample prices (1 hour and >5 hour) which you removed today. I notice that you also removed the similar content from the Transport in Cambridge article. Please can we discuss this on the Transport in Ipswich article. PeterEastern (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)