User talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive 2

Concorde

When you amended the Concorde page by adding information regarding the British Airways auction of Concorde memorabilia, you deleted the info about the Air France auction. User:Moriori, 23.59, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I overwrote the second, duplicate occurrence of that text Andy Mabbett 11:16, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Fanzines

I think it was my fault fanzines disappeared from the sf page - I took a while to do my edit and ran into an edit conflict, I merged in The Anome's change but didn't realise your change had happened since I started editing as well, sorry :) --AW

No worries ;-) Andy Mabbett 01:16, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

BT Tower

Why is the BT Tower now at BT Tower (London)? Are there lots of other buildings called "BT Tower" that it needs to be distinguished from? -- Anon.

I have already replied on the article's talk page. Andy Mabbett 13:21, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Monarchy

Look, the statement may be true, but one bill proposed by Tony Benn is hardly evidence of that. And, in any event, it doesn't belong in the introduction ot the article. john 00:31, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

"look"; of course the bill is evidence. The rest of your comment *is* just a PoV. Andy Mabbett 10:55, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hiya, Andy.

Quick question about your link to a "UK site with coverage of allegations" on the George_Smith_(Royal_servant) page. Where exactly on this self-styled republican ("Campaigning to abolish the monarchy in favour of a representative British Republic") site are the allegations covered?

Also: this link differs from the others, which point to established print and online media sources. I'm wondering if it doesn't knock the neutrality slightly off kilter to link to a site that is vigorously campaigning for the abolition of the monarchy?

Perhaps a paragraph indicating (if, indeed, there is evidence to support this) that some commentators consider this affair (in conjunction with the Burrell affair) to be a full-blown constitutional crisis - and that calls for the abolition of the monarchy have become more vocal as a result of these rumours and allegations - would be apropos? The link you provide would seem to be more appropriate in that context.

chocolateboy 13:13, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Under "news". It's the only English site known to have repeated (via a link to offshore pages) the allegations. I don't consider neutrality to be compromised by linking to partisan comment; feel free to link to something of expressing the opposite viewpoint. Feel free also to submit a para. such as you suggest Andy Mabbett 14:15, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Ah, that's interesting. Thanks for clarifying. Unfortunately, I still can't see the allegations. I can't find a "news" link on that page. The "latest" link points to a page with the interesting headline "What was the 'Mail on Sunday' story that was suppressed?", but unfortunately the link 404s. Could you provide a direct link to the allegations page on www.republic.org.uk?
  - The page you cite was indeed the one I had in mind. Interesting..! Andy Mabbett 15:42, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    - ;-) Chocolateboy 15:57, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Also, throneout.com appears to be an English site as well... I don't know which came first, but I doubt www.republic.org.uk is the "only" English site trafficking in or linking to these allegations.
- If, as seems the case, the republic.org.uk site no longer links to the allegations, can I persuade you to replace that obsolete link with the throneout.com link? You might consider moving the www.republic.org.uk link to the Burrell affair page, which does contain a paragraph in the vein outlined above. Chocolateboy 15:17, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  - Feel free Andy Mabbett 15:48, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    - Thanks! Chocolateboy 15:57, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I added the word republican to the link. I think in this case it is worth informing the reader that the link, good and all as it is, is not an objective media link but a link to a page that is agenda-driven. Similar a monarchist link should have a mention that it isn't a neutral site but comes with an agenda. That doesn't mean the contents of the page in every case is POV, but the reader when seeing the link should be given some idea of the source so that they can keep it in mind before entering the link, rather than find the agenda only after they have entered what they presumed to be an agenda-free NPOV site. :-) FearÉIREANN 21:30, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Imponderables

The Imponderables joke wasn't missed. It was just more amusing to play straight man.:) JamesDay 17:14, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

That's what they all say ;-) Andy Mabbett 22:04, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Snacja, etc

Like I said on my page, I'm new and I didn't know whether to add or to type a new comment. Sorry for the cofussion. But both Michal Arkusz and Sanacja are legitamite, I assure you. Why censor them, and not the other small parties listed on here? Sanacja 01:58, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
The party has nothing to do with Hitler, why do you keep adding his reference to the page's description?Sanacja 02:11, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- I have not said that the supposed party "has anything to do with Hitler"; the refernce (on Sanacja is to the similarity of two slogans.
  - But that is a misleading association of the two. Clearly most nationalists in one way or another identify with a "nation", but that does not automatically make them Nazis. By placing a link to Hitler next to the Sanacja slogan you are implying that it is Nazi, which is not true. It would be as if I placed a link to Hitler next to any Germans on here, yes there is a commonality, but it is a false association intended to slight the target reference. I believe you are doing this out of spite, and not out of common sense. Sanacja 16:26, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    - I don't care two figs what you "believe". Andy Mabbett 17:26, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Your formatting seems to have caused VfD to be duplicated in place. 141.156.242.211 03:14, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The main page of their website, directly there. Says they want all western slavs in a polish federation, which means poles, czechs, slovaks, and sorbs. Morwen 20:39, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The further explanation you added to Modern Sanacja is a good start in clarifying things, but I still disagree with the claim that the Nalecz is the Nazi Odal Symbol. The Nalecz is a Polish heraldic clan sign (pg. 195 in "Europe" by Norman Davies). I agree that it resembles the Odal, but it is not the same thing. To you this may make no difference, but to us there is a big difference between Polish clan signs and Nazi symbols. Sanacja 02:06, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Where did you get the information about Rachel's toothbrush? WhisperToMe 00:21, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Stop (The Wall)

You sure? Don't forget that the Line "STOP" is part of Waiting for the Worms according to the CD.

Oh well, I had my volume down, and the film still confuses the hell out of me Fizscy46

Yes. Andy Mabbett 09:20, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well, I am sure that he Syd Barrett is Catatonic, that part isn't a rumour, but yet you removed it. Fizscy46

Evidence? Andy Mabbett 11:20, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This site, 10th paragraph Going catatonic at all can be a sign of catatonia. He also continued to do that on 2 of the bands television appearences.Fizscy46

- Unsubstantiated hearsay. Andy Mabbett 14:56, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Concorde

Andy, I put the Concorde pic and caption onto Wikipedia. I took the pic, yesterday at Filton. I'm not going to get into a reversion war on the strange "undercarriage lowered" addition but I just want to tell you I can't imagine why you think that's a necessary addition. The undercarriage is perfectly clear, especially on the Large Version and in any case an aircraft landing usually does have its undercarriage down! Please don't reply to this and I won't be reverting you (unless someone else does, of course).
Adrian Pingstone 21:19, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

"Please don't reply to this" ??? Andy Mabbett 21:35, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

You just did!

Adrian Pingstone 22:19, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Introduction sections

Please do not insert arbitrary "Introduction" sections. The first paragraph or two of every article should be a broad summary of the entire article. A single sentence will not do. This first section is supposed to be the type of information one would find in a concise encyclopedia. The sections are where the detail is supposed to go. See news style. Thanks! --mav 21:36, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)~

I see nothing on that page which says that a contents box should appear below the fold; especially on a 17" monitor at high resoluton and medium font size. Andy Mabbett 21:51, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Why would it? It is just talking about general organization (inverted pyramid with the most important information first and detail later). The lead summarizes the main points and is the first part of an article. Once that is read people can continue with the rest of the article using the TOC for navigation if they want. But the most important part - the summary - most be first. --mav

Euston tube station

Currently Euston tube station redirects to Euston station. If this is to remain so, we ought to keep the info about the tube station at the top so it doesn't cause scrolling down and confusion? Morwen 23:24, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Better to move the tube station stuff to a separate page (and mention Euston Square, too). Andy Mabbett 23:34, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

"undercarriage" on Concorde page

This "undercarriage" nonsense has to stop - it is destroying the page history. Please add your voice to a straw poll I set up at Talk:Concorde. --mav 22:22, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

There is no nonesense; the undercarriage is lowered. If you're worried about the article history, stop removing my comment from the caption. Andy Mabbett 22:24, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- It is jargon. And you are the only person who wants it in there. This is a cooperative project, if you cannot cooperate with others and bend to the will of the majority, then this isn't the place for you. --mav 22:28, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  - Wiki is an encylopedia - are you seriously suggesting that jargon should never be used? "Undercarriage" is mentioned on ~20 other aircraft pages. You haven't tried to remove it from them. The mention in the caption on Concorde (to which you refer) links to an explanations. When you can demonstrate "the will of the majority" (rather than three or four abusive individuals; though you seem to confuse co-operation and majority dictat), do let me know Andy Mabbett 22:39, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    - That is what the vote is for. Jargon has its place, but a caption is not such a place. --mav
      - Cite? Andy Mabbett 22:54, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      - cf Luna, London and Earth. Andy Mabbett 23:05, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Echoes

I don't see the need to remove the doubled links. It makes it much nicer if someone can link from any particular song, rather than looking for another one from the same album. Also, if you are to remove them, at least do it correctly. And yes I have read the manual of style -Fizscy46 15:14, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

As for Dark Side, I don't think 'founder member' is correct. When have you ever heard it used like that? Its always been 'founding member', or 'founder'

Google:

Searched the web for "founder member". Results 1 - 10 of about 85,000

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (which you have apparently read) accepts both British and American spelling, although recommending American spelling for American subjects and vice versa. Do you intend to query every edit I make to Pink Floyd related pages? Andy Mabbett 15:34, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Searched the web for "founding member". Results 1 - 10 of about 1,760,000

Would you rather an edit war? Perhaps we can delve into the blackout type of edit war, and creat 200 edit pages?

As a large Pink Floyd fan (Like yourself), I make frequent checks on the, and change little things. Spelling is fine, but with compilation albums, its user friendly to link to the album from every track. -Fizscy46 02:23, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Cyndi Lauper

Hi again.

Thanks for your Cyndi Lauper edit.

The original wording of the intro, which you reinstated, struck me as somewhat clumsy and inelegant, which is why I reorganized it. While I appreciate your invocation of "standard form", I've certainly seen a number of pages that bend that rule in the interests of more perspicuous or elegant prose.

Indeed, the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies) sanctions both constructions. While the blurb states: "For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the birth name should usually [emphasis mine] appear first in the article", the 2nd example it gives follows the pattern of the edit you reverted: "E. B. White, born Elwyn Brooks White... " &c. (I've edited that page now to make this example less of a contradiction.)

The problem I have with the first rule is that (in conjunction with the "born on..." clause) it leads to a telegraphic style in which the intro ends up gasping for the verb: "William Henry Gates, III (born October 28, 1955), commonly known as Bill Gates". This, to my ear, reads less fluidly than: "Cyndi Lauper (born Cynthia Ann Stephanie Lauper on June 20 or June 22 (sources vary), 1953) is a singer...". The original version of that sentence was particularly "gaspy" because of that additional apposition, "sources vary".

Of course, the page also emphasizes that "Writers are NOT expected or required to follow all or any of these rules" ;) I am reminded of Orwell's "Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous" [1].

chocolateboy 18:13, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Several days ago you joined the discussion of whether Brunswick or Braunschweig should be the home of the article on the German city. After a brief discussion, the question was moved from the Votes for deletion page to Talk:Brunswick. Quite a bit of fact-finding has occurred since then, but the decision appears to have reached an impasse. Could I ask you to take a few minutes to review the facts presented on Talk:Brunswick and share your current thoughts? Thanks. Rossami 22:25, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Moving pages

Copy and paste moves cannot be accepted and will be reverted. There's a "move this page" function. --Jiang | Talk 08:11, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Cannot move to a page whath already exists. Please stop trying to impose a US- centric view onto a page which was written in British English. Andy Mabbett 08:14, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Please discuss this at Talk:Residence hall. --Jiang | Talk 08:15, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I will use Talk:Hall of residence Andy Mabbett 08:16, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Please, if you want the page moved, please sit and discuss it. C/p moves are never accepted and will be reverted. --Jiang | Talk 08:17, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  - Unfortunately, you cannot get your way using brute force. You need to discuss. Copying and pasting is not only bad form, but it will get you nowhere. --Jiang | Talk 20:15, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    - Fortunately, you cannot get your way using brute force. You need to discuss. Andy Mabbett 20:16, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      - You are the one hijacking the page history, not me. I wouldn't engage in a move war if you moved it correctly. You could have easily done that to begin with. --Jiang | Talk 20:27, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        A lie. Andy Mabbett 20:29, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Do you deny that you are copying and pasting? How can I be lying? --Jiang | Talk 22:10, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I've put Jiang on Conflicts between users. Secretlondon 12:30, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)

BTW theres a disgussion about the counties debacle at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) if you're interested G-Man 19:12, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflicts between users - was called Problem Users. Secretlondon 19:28, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)

Blanking articles

Blanking articles that are listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion just makes extra work for those who want to look at the content. -- Oliver P. 00:41, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Copyright issue

Yes, Cluj-Napoca Botanical Garden may raise copyright issues all around. See my comments on Talk:Cluj-Napoca Botanical Garden. In short, I translated (and took the visuals) from a Romanian-language wikipedia article, but it may well have copyright issues of which I was unaware.

I think that my English-language text is probably OK; the article is basically a recitation of facts, and a loose translation of material of this sort is probably not a copyright violation, but a word-for-word copy sure is. You are welcome to pursue this as you see fit. -- Jmabel 04:19, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Woodstock

Since you made Woodstock into a disambiguation page (or rather redirected it to one), please go to [2] whenever you have a chance and fix all the links directing there. --Jiang | Talk 11:40, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'll be glad to advise you of my rates for undertaking directed work. They're not cheap. Andy Mabbett 11:56, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Drayton

Thanks for starting the disambiguation page Drayton. I was going to do that for all the multiple place names featured in Buckinghamshire once I'd finished on that particular project. Incidentally, Drayton Manor, Buckinghamshire is not somewhere I've come cross from a historical viewpoint. Which Drayton does it refer to: Drayton Beauchamp or Drayton Parslow? Francs2000 16:13, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Streetmap lists it as such [3]. Andy Mabbett 16:18, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Just checked that and it's referring simply to the manor of Drayton Beauchamp. It's nowhere special, just separate from the rest of the parish. Are we to create an article just for a single house that isn't anywhere particularly special? Francs2000 16:30, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  - You know the area better than I; feel free to edit the list as you see fit. Andy Mabbett 16:37, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Fawley

Re: Fawley. It is unwise to assume that just because two places are called the same that they have the same meaning. Fawley in Berks means 'clearing frequented by fallow deer'. Fawley in Bucks means 'fallow-coloured clearing'. Fawley in Hants means 'clearing with ploughed land'. Fawley Chapel in Herefs means 'clearing where hay is made'. Francs2000 22:33, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Fair enough - and interetsing enough to be listed on that page, which I've done. Andy Mabbett 22:39, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

?

what do you mean by copy edit?

Introduction

I don't see how it makes sense to call a section "introduction" when the first paragraph is the introduction. --Jiang | Talk 23:50, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm sorry for your lack of understanding. I have lots of books with "introductions", but each has text preceding it. Please stop making ridiculous edits, messing up page structures (e.g your last change to BBC Radio 4) and using wildly misleading headings, on many pages (e.g "Development" for one small part of Netscape Navigator), just to change my use of "introduction" as a heading - unless you can cite a policy against this? Andy Mabbett 00:07, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- An encyclopedia is not a book. Therefore, we don't have acknowledgements and prefaces. What do you wan't to all the first paragraph if you call another section the "introduction"? What was wrong with my edit for BBC Radio 4? How about using the word "creation" for Netscape Navigator? Development still makes sense, as that section describes how it was initially develped, as opposed to improvements. --Jiang | Talk 00:21, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  - "What do you wan't to all (sic) the first paragraph if you call another section the "introduction"?" - Answered on one of the pages on which you removed an "introduction" header earlier today. "What was wrong with my edit for BBC Radio 4?" - Answered when I reverted that page. There is nothing wrong with "introduction" - unless you can cite a policy against this? Andy Mabbett 00:26, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I've already stated on this page what is wrong with having a section entitled "introduction". The current policy refers to the opening paragraph as the intro. I don't know if we can still call it the same thing if we have a section named "introduction". If you cannot find what is wrong with my edits, then don't revert. Conversely, I do find something wrong with yours. --Jiang | Talk 00:31, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- "I've already stated on this page what is wrong with having a section entitled "introduction"" - and I've refuted that. "The current policy refers to the opening paragraph as the intro." What policy? "I don't know if we can still call it the same thing if we have a section named "introduction"." Noone else has had a problem with it. "If you cannot find what is wrong with my edits..." I can and have done. Andy Mabbett 00:41, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- If you have a problem, express it. (Here) What do you mean by "what policy"? "Noone else has had a problem with it." is not a valid argument. --Jiang | Talk 00:45, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  - I don't have a problem, other than the fact that you keep making facile and damaging changes to articles, just so that "introduction" is not used as a header. I have three times now asked you to site teeh policy which says "introduction" cannot be used. "Noone else has had a problem with it." is perfectly valid, on a project which relies on consensus. Andy Mabbett 00:47, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Guide to Layout. If it's damaging, tell me how it's damaging. That's what I'm asking for. If you find it damaging, then you do have a problem with it.

Only two people are in this discussion. One is for, one is against. Where is the consensus to go with your version? --Jiang | Talk 00:54, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

"See Wikipedia:Guide to Layout." - where? The word "introduction" does not even appear on that page. If it's damaging, tell me how it's damaging." I have done. Andy Mabbett 00:57, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The word "introductory" does.

No you have not told me how it's damaging. You are being uncooperative by purposely refusing to clarify your views in this disucssion. If I say you haven't, then you explain it anyways because you are failing to communicate. --Jiang | Talk

I cannot parse your last (apart from If you say I haven't explained something, then I explain it, which is good), but which part of

Please stop making ridiculous edits, messing up page structures (e.g your last change to BBC Radio 4) and using wildly misleading headings, on many pages (e.g "Development" for one small part of Netscape Navigator),

and the releavnt edit hostories do you have trouble understanding? Andy Mabbett 01:25, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Again, I ask how are my edits "ridiculous", how did I "mess up the page structure" of BBC Radio 4? Please provide a specific argument, rather than broad generalizations. Please also link to the edit histories with arguments you would like me to see.

I already stated above: "How about using the word "creation" for Netscape Navigator? Development still makes sense, as that section describes how it was initially develped, as opposed to improvements." You never answered me on that. --Jiang | Talk 01:29, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding the consensus issue - I'm not the first to complain: #Introduction_sections. --Jiang | Talk 01:30, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Scottish folk music

Why did you move music of Scotland to Scottish folk music? Aside from being inconsistent with other music of XXX articles, it's POV and inaccurate. When the main page gets to be too long, it can be split up in whatever way is logical. Preemptively splitting is silly. Tuf-Kat 00:38, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)

Because Scotland has other types of music, also. In what way do you feel that is it "PoV"? There was one page; there is still one page. Noone has presumptively split" Andy Mabbett 00:41, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- See talk:Scottish folk music

Seattle Center

I really don't want to get into an edit war, but is there a reason why at the start of Seattle Center you changed "Seattle Center" to "The Seattle Center"? I've lived in Seattle more than half of my life, and while I'd be lying if I said I'd never heard anyone refer to it that way, the official name is "Seattle Center" (as you can easily see at http://www.seattlecenter.com/default2.asp), not "The Seattle Center", and I would be willing to swear on a stack of mothers that it is also in more common use, at least among the city's residents. -- Jmabel 00:49, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Seemed more gramatical, feel free to revert if it's not so. Personally, I'm not a fan of "newspeak"Andy Mabbett 00:53, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
It's not "newspeak", it's a place name. Would you call Darien Center, NY, "the Darien Center"? -- Jmabel 02:42, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Probably. Andy Mabbett 22:21, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

A Nightingale Sang in Berkeley Square: lyric copyright

Nightingale etc lyrics are from 1915, therefore out of copyright (70 years). Incidentally, this page is up to 31k, so you might want to archive or dump. Jim

"70 years" copyright runs from death of author, not time of writing. Andy Mabbett 22:20, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

IMDb

hello, did u read the change i made? the link was relevant!!!! read it and see... it links to rec.movie.arts, which is what the imdb website was originally based on, so is very relevant!

Steeev 17:02, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

911

so are you saying the whole thing was a coincidence as well? are you saying there was no planning involved in the 911 attacks? the unbelievable amount of planning that must have gone into that attack must be evidence enough that it was no coincidence!

No. (refers to September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks) Andy Mabbett 13:37, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- do u seriously believe the date they chose was just a coincidence? they must have spent years planning that attack, do u really think they would just pick a date out of thin air, the propaganda coup of having the attack on the date 911 was enormous!
  - yes. Can you try to write in English, please? Thank you. Andy Mabbett 14:07, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    - if your definition of writing in english, is writing uninformative single word sentences such as "yes." and "no." then, i will try, if it makes things easier for u to understand.

Life in the freezer

I'm watching this series right now (thanks to BitTorrent). I love David Attenborough's work. Are you planning to write a more detailed summary? If not, I might do it.—Eloquence

Please do! Andy Mabbett 22:00, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Birmingham

Regarding the transport section on the Birmingham article, you do seem to be in a minority of one with you're insistance of having multiple headers. So far, at least three people have agreed with my idea of just having one, which I personally would like to change it to. G-Man 22:26, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

My previous comemnts apply. Have you done as I suggested? Andy Mabbett 22:35, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- What do you mean exactly G-Man 22:37, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  - "go and read about STRUCTURED markup, heading (<Hn) tags, etc.)"Andy Mabbett 22:43, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I have, and as I have already argued, I do not believe that it is neccesary for single sentences and short paragraphs to have their own sub-section, as it looks messy.

I have also pointed out to you that the guidelines on page layout are just that - guidelines. And are not intended as rules to be followed rigidly regardless of circumstances, when it might be more sensible to do things differently. G-Man 22:50, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Neither of which addreses my point.Andy Mabbett 22:53, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- How exactly does it not address you're point? G-Man 22:55, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  - HTML is a structural mark-up langauge. That means that distinct sections should be marked as such (this is of particular relevance for non- standard readers (including people using text- readers and "spiders", as I think I've mentioned before). Andy Mabbett 23:00, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

But I dont believe that it is neccesary to divide the transport section into distinct sections, the Transport header covers the whole topic perfectly well: Heck, Its only a short section G-Man 23:04, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I've noted your belief. Andy Mabbett 23:06, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well from what I've seen, more people agree with me than with you. You're beliefs on this matter are no more valid than mine, it is an honest difference of opinion, I probably wont convince you and you wont convince me.

The wikipedia works on consensus and majority rule, and in this matter at least you seem to be in a minority G-Man 23:13, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I haven't presented you with beliefs; I've presented you with facts (even though I had already realised that you were not likely to be able to be convinced by them); you should know that, having just confirmed that you have read up on the matter. Also, "consensus" and "majority" are incompatible, in this context. HTH.Andy Mabbett 23:16, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

We seem to be arguing in circles here. You have still not answered why it is neccesary to sub-divide the transport section, when the single Transport header would suffice G-Man 23:26, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

HTML is a structural mark-up langauge. That means that distinct sections should be marked as such (this is of particular relevance for non- standard readers (including people using text- readers and "spiders", as I think I've mentioned before).Andy Mabbett 23:35, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I see this argument is clearly getting nowhere, so we will just have to agree to disagree G-Man 15:39, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad to say that I think we have reached a good compromise: the section in question is divided into subheaders as Andy Mabbett wanted, but the sub-sections and -headers have been improved and more content added, content which warrants the subheaders it has. I think the latter was G-Man's main concern, that the content didn't warrant dividing. --Sam 19:53, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The Prince of Wales

Hi Andy, I reverted some of your changes to Charles, Prince of Wales.

Firstly, the disambigulation link is generally put up front to enable someone who went to the page and found something different to what they were expecting to know where else to go. Putting it at the bottom makes no sense as people are hardly going to read down through the article to find the disambigulation.

Secondly, it is standard practice to begin articles on royalty on wikipedia with a person's title or name/title in bold, then their personal name in bold italics. Your move of the Prince of Wales conflicts with the agreed style applied to all royal articles.

Thirdly, it was agreed after a discussion that the disambigulation links should be italicised. Leaving them as ordinary type was thought of as clumsy and ugly.

You may not have realised that all three were agreed formats and not someone's personal foible. As they were agreed, in some cases after long debates on naming formats, I have returned them to the agreed format. :-) FearÉIREANN 00:50, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I have respondsed to some of the above comments where you also made them; on the article's talk page. Additionally, large sections of italicised text are dficult to read, espeically for people with reading disabilities such as dyslexia. Andy Mabbett 00:52, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Worcs

Do we need a list of towns in the United Kingdom which straddle traditional county borders? :) Morwen 21:17, Dec 23, 2003 (UTC)

No, but if you want one, I can think of someone we could give the job to! Andy Mabbett 21:21, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- I'm not sure they like to think about it much - in much the same way they try to ignore Cromartyshire when they use the term 'geographical county'. Morwen 21:23, Dec 23, 2003 (UTC)

Stone Fruits

Andy, maybe there is some way to make this clearer on the Seed page, but the "stone" of a fruit like a peach is NOT the seed, but part of the fruit (the seed IS inside). The idea of an encyclopedia is not to further misinformation. Actually, now that I look carefully at your last change, I see that you did acknowledge that. Sorry. I'll fix it the way you intended - Marshman 04:33, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

One

Regarding the songs on one:

They could either stay as small disambiguated mini-articles separated with horizontal lines on the main article, be added to a separate One (disambiguation) page, or to the disambig header of the article. This is really disambiguation and not so much relevant information about the number one and its cultural meaning (too specific and little known). But we generally do not write articles about individual songs unless they are extraordinarily remarkable, so that information is probably better placed in the articles about the artists.

Whenever an article turns into a bullet point list, you move away from the article format and should probably start thinking about whether you're really dealing with a disambiguation page or with a list.—Eloquence

The Tube

I don't know what part of the UK you must come from but I've rarely heard anyone in Britain say "the tube" and mean the television "the telly" is much more common. Whereas I've heard it in various American TV shows and films for many years. Mintguy 23:33, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I am trying to disambiguate the "director" link on the Andy Hamilton page. I updated the link to television director. Please fix if I guessed wrong. Rossami 23:23, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Kylie Minogue

You've done some good work on the Kylie Minogue page. Would you consider supporting its application to become a featured article?
-> Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates. 131.111.250.45 14:40, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)