User talk:Wjemather/Pre 2009

English cricket clubs
Hi. I see you've started work on the List of English cricket clubs, which is in a bit of a mess. Thank you for the really useful work you've done so far: I'm starting from the top of the list and working downwards, and it looks, usefully, that you're starting from the leagues themselves and working upwards. With any luck (and rather a lot of effort) we should meet somewhere in the middle! I'll look forward to working with you. There's going to be an awful lot of redlinks to eradicate by the time we get there. Kind regards. Johnlp (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've simply sectioned the article up, ultimately, the plan being to delete the Other Leagues and Other Clubs sections and just having three sections:
 * ECB Premier Leagues
 * Prominent leagues
 * Other prominent clubs
 * when finished. Rather than removing the redlinks, how about just deleting all the non-notable stuff? -- bigissue (talk) 11:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was kind of what I was aiming to do, and then work my way down to have an article on each of the individual leagues. And maybe then, if I have the energy, to do the clubs. I'll go on doing the ECB premier leagues and their clubs, though probably not for the next few hours as I have other things to do this afternoon (UK time). There are various rules about not creating lists of redlinks: it's pretty inevitable with this kind of list, but what I hope we can do is to take out all the redlinks for non-premier-division sides that don't deserve to have articles created, but leaving in those teams at the top end of recreational amateur cricket where a short article is probably appropriate. I stuck the "underconstruction" template on the top of the page so anyone coming in should treat us kindly while the work is in progress. Cheers. Johnlp (talk) 11:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have already started working through creating articles for the ECB Premier Leagues - very basic one line intro & table of winners. -- bigissue (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. You've been replacing "and" with ampersands in some names. The ampersand doesn't always come across in XML formats unless you use the "&amp" construction, and for article titles it's safer to use "and" so that we know everyone will be able to read them. Johnlp (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries. Reverted to "and"s. Cheers. -- bigissue (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to be bold and to delete all the leagues apart from the ECB ones and the "other prominents". I know we probably should have a Yorkshire one or two among the other prominent leagues alongside the Lancashire ones, but I'm not sure those we have are the right ones. What do you think? Johnlp (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I would agree. Delete the rest, adding a section for Other notable clubs, containing all remaining clubs that already have pages.
 * As for additional leagues, as a start, I have added the Bradford League to the list, none of whos clubs seem to have pages surprisingly. bigissue (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Has just about halved the list in length, which has to be a good thing. I'm pretty certain there are other Yorkshire leagues apart from the Bradford, and wonder about the Manchester league (which I've just deleted, of course). I too am surprised about the lack of articles in some areas: surely the Pudsey St Lawrence club has provided several Test cricketers. And Lascelles Hall in the Huddersfield League produced half a dozen 19th century Yorkshire players. Johnlp (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Srixon
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Srixon, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Clubmarx (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Should they stay or should they go?

 * Sasquatch (golf club)
 * R7 Quad
 * Astris FII (hydrogen golf cart)
 * E-Z-GO

Jee Young Lee
She is notable because of her career as a professional golfer on the LPGA Tour. And there she is known as Jee Young Lee. See: Jee Young Lee Even this fan site about Koren golfers refers to her as Jee Young Lee. See SeoulSisters.com --Crunch (talk) 11:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Since you cited Wikipedia conventions, you should look at the convention followed for the article of essentially every other Korean golfer on Wikipedia. For example: And, as you said, "unless she has a preference for the Westernized usage." How exactly are you going to determine this? Certainly as a public figure, if she wanted to be known as Lee Jee-young,she had ample opportunity to make her preference known and change her name in all its appearances as a few other Korean golfers have done. --Crunch (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Shi Hyun Ahn
 * Bae Sang-moon
 * Il Mi Chung
 * Se Ri Pak
 * Eun-Hee Ji
 * Mi Hyun Kim
 * Inbee Park
 * Seon Hwa Lee
 * Ji-Yai Shin

Kirkstead bridge
Agree, I've merged the differences in to Woodall Spa article.

Ditto for Jubilee park article, -BulldozerD11 (talk) 00:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion
Hello. It appears you have nominated an image for speedy deletion. You said it was tooken from a website, however you have absolutley no proof. This could be nominated for deletion, but I feel that this being nominated for speedy deletion is absured, because on the pages summary, it said it was created by the person all by themself, and it was not edited since then, only by you and me, who have nominated it for speedy deletion and challenged it. If you can give me some proof, leave me a message on my talk page, and then i'll support your reasoning. Thank you.

K50 Dude-talk page —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC).

RE: Speedy Deletion
Hello, thank you for bringing my attention to the dissagreement. I think it is understandable now that it was tooken from the website.

K50 Dude —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC).

Golf Product List
Hello, The past couple of days I have been updating the golf product lists and you appear to be undo-ing many of my changes. For the record, I work at a golf shop and am exposed to these products everyday and can confirm the existence and sale of every product. This includes the Callaway X-Prototype Irons, an actual model and not a 'prototype.'  If you would like any references of these items existence, please do not hesitate to ask.

Reply: Thank you for your comment... Will continue to keep the Products updated...

Toast91 (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)