User talk:HandsomeFella

Many thanks! That's exactly what the stop is for! Rich Farmbrough, 11:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to JAS 39 Gripen, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Bzuk (talk) 23:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using non-print or electronic media is fraught with problems, especially since so many editors do not identify when they have accessed the data. Whenever a "check" is made on an article and invariably, a review of any links to determine whether there are "dead links" then at least placing a marker as of the date of the check tells other editors that the reference source has been operative on that date. This is a "standard" procedure and should not be considered "false" or "misinformation"; it is merely a reaffirmation that the link is active. Every so often when an article is being revised, it is a common practice to update the non-print media links and that is why you will see the information given in two different ways, when the information was first written or created and when it was active or current. Consider my above comment as a gentle reminder to ask first or check with the appropriate group veterans when a question like this comes up again, otherwise you may incur the wrath of some of the crochety smart-aleks, like myself. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

When a periodical title is part of a larger work such as a book, encyclopedia or the like, then the first title is identified as a unit separated by quotation marks and ending in a full stop (.) while the main entry title is identified by italics and again ends in a period. The reason I use for the terminology "Retrieved" is that is the term that is "outputted" in the citation templates. The reason for the more precise "Retrieved:" stems from the very first GA. FA review in which I was involved and was the acceptable entry at the time. FWiW, the use of non-English sources is a bit of a conundrum and in going back to my cataloging courses and checking with my last Chief Library technician, the consensus was to identify the language directly within the title tracings (which in the case of a URL-linked sources is within the brackets). 21:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bzuk. I'm having a hard time understanding what you're trying to tell me. About the colon following "Retrieved", if you can show me that this is the standard, then ok I'll buy it, but this is the first article I've seen it in (and I've read many). Are you introducing a new standard?

The next thing is the full stop at the end of cited web page titles. My view is that quotations should be correct - to the last comma and full stop, and even spelling error. And in most web page titles, the sentence does not end with a full stop. So why should we insert it here? It will only result in an incorrect quotation, albeit of minor significance. But why have an inaccuracy at all, even if it's small? I haven't seen this anywere else. Maybe the full stop should be outside the quotation mark. What MOS are you referring to in these cases?

HandsomeFella (talk) 09:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commas haven't been used in bibliographic notations for nearly 20 years, the use of the full stop was instituted years back as the way to end a MARC record (it is a convention that told the operator or cataloger that there was a break in the bibliographic notation, with the use of digital records, the standard was maintained). URL records simply are the notation within the tracing. The use of the style of retrieved is simply that, the use of the style, and once a style is established, the style predominates in editing. The use of full stop (.) is a North American convention and is widely applied in all publishing, cataloging although there is a British variation that is used in Wiki style for quotations, however, you have mistaken the entire premise here, the use of "quotation" marks does not identify a quotation, it is merely the protocol to identify a subsidiary title compared to a main title. Whenever there is an article title contained within a larger work, then both titles are identified. For example, the author of newspaper article has both an article title identified by quotation marks, separated from the main newspaper that is identified by italics; again a convention that was established many decades ago. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I haven't the faintest idea of what you are talking about. Are we talking about the same thing? You have reverted my edit of the article on the JAS 39 Gripen. Among other things, this has resulted in a full stop being inserted into quotations, like "Saab signs new agreement with UK’s test pilots’ school." instead of "Saab signs new agreement with UK’s test pilots’ school" (nb. the full stop inside the quotation mark). What on earth is the point in that? There is no full stop in the referred page heading, so why should there be one here? And what does any of it have to do with bibliographic notation, subsidiary title and main title? Finally, please refer to a MOS section to verify your claims. Cheers HandsomeFella (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, these are not quotations, but "titles" that use a quotation mark to identify them as a secondary title, where a main title is identified with italics. FWiW, "Saab signs new agreement with UK’s test pilots’ school." is a title not a quotation and has an end point established while Gripen International is the main title identified, and if there is no further elaboration as to an update appears as Gripen International. If a date is given then it appears as Gripen International, 29 October 2010. The entire "string" that follows is: "Saab signs new agreement with UK’s test pilots’ school." Gripen International, 29 October 2010. If the title is from a book, then the publisher and source is identified in a completely new bibliographic notation. Here is an example of that "string": Joiner, George. The Saab Story. New York: Random House, 2009. (ISBN optional) Bzuk (talk) 15:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now that you're finally expressing yourself clearly, I'm beginning to understand what you're getting at. You're saying that North-American standard/style should apply. But the article in question is not about a North-American aircraft. So the style does not apply. Remember, this is an English language encyclopedia, not an English or American one. Btw, it's funny that you call it a full stop. If you're such a fan of North-American style, you should call it a period. Finally, you've still not provided a reference to WP:MOS supporting your view, nor have you provided examples of other (non-North-American) articles with the same style. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The title are titles, it has nothing to do with quotations. You identify a title from a periodical with quotation marks and where it comes from, the publisher or source with italics, both being separated by periods, in no matter what style guide you are using. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC). Read: Citations and References.[reply]

You know, it's funny, almost ironic. When you finally come up with a reference to support your claims, it turns out - when one reads it - that it actally supports my format. Hence my revert. Can I trust your promise (from the edit summary); that it was your last revert? Cheers. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Started a section for discussion on the Gripen talkpage. Let's continue there. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's only you that doesn't understand the basics of citations. How can you possibly state that the title entry is a "quotation". Do you even understand the difference between a periodical or non-print title linked to a primary source? FWiW, the style guide for this article is already established, please leave the article alone. Bzuk (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Now, you are just a plain vandal and will be treated as such. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Zero[edit]

I'm not a vandal, and I will *not* be treated like one. I make constructive edits, just as I assume you do. Me reverting your changes does not make me a vandal; you revert mine, so that would make two of us, if it were true. However, we do have serious differences in the view on the "looks" of the references.

One thing is that your explanations tell me close to nothing. You're correct: I don't understand what you write. This could have two possible reasons (well, there could be a third, but I know I'm not stupid). The first is that English is not my mother tongue. You've probably understood this already. So my choice of words, my terminology if you will, may be off (in your view).

The other is that your explanations are, to put it mildly, not very clarifying. When I try to understand them, and believe me, I've tried desperately, I just can't. I've also followed your links to wp:mos pages. What I find there does not match your (intentionally?) woolly explanations, to the best of my understanding. Instead, I find that what is shown there match the "looks" of the references before you started to alter them. For instance, look here - I found this when I followed your link - and then try to convince me that this is what the references look like, "Bzuk style"! Just look at it. No periods or commas inside the quotation marks there!

What the examples look like, is how the references in the Gripen article looked before you started editing away on it, putting periods and commas inside the quotation marks, etc. I know, because I've been a major contributor to the Gripen article for a couple of years now. (I know, it doesn't give me a veto, but it does give me a say.)

The reasons for our communication breakdown is probably a mix of both reasons as described above, with frustration added to the mix. One part of me suspects that you're taking advantage of my inferior understanding of the English language (compared to you), and that you intentionally produce woolly explanations in order just to baffle me to silence. But the logical part of me says: "what on earth would he do that for?". But then again: why haven't I seen the "Bzuk style" in references in any other article? As I said, I've been around in Wikipedia for a while.

Now, let's start from zero again. I've gone the extra mile. I started a new discussion section on the Gripen talkpage. I suggested the use of cite web templates, which might resolve the dispute (you've responded, but not to that). I've now described exhaustively how I perceive your input. Now, you go that extra mile and *please* try to express yourself clearly (even if you think it's at children's level) and in a structured manner. Contemplate this: why do I understand every other editor's input, but not yours? Maybe you're not so good at explaining as you think you are.

Regards

HandsomeFella (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is as simple as I can state it: References (all sources of information given in academic works) are given in this form (there is no variance from one style guide to another, all style guides use this format, even in the Wiki citation templates:

• Author (typically last, first name order, alphabetically ordered by first entry if more than one) e.g. Smith, Joe.
• Title (given as full title, INCLUDING the titles of articles and the main title of the derivative work; so that if an encyclopedia article appears, it is cited, but the main title, e.g. the name of the encyclopedia also appears. That form would read: Smith, Joe. "Interesting article: Today." Encyclopedia Smith. Because there are essentially two titles, the first subsidiary one is differentiated from the main title by the use of quotation mark and italic symbols. The use of periods is the current (for the last 20 years) style to differentiate from commas which are reserved for continuous passages. Colons are used to separate a title from a sub-title within a title line.)
• Publisher/publishing information (If use of the Modern Language Association style guide, or any other style guide that specifies "full" detailing, then the publishing location is given with a colon used as a separator. The example then appears as: Smith, Joe. "Interesting article: Today." Encyclopedia Smith. London: Smith Publishing House, pp. 181–193, (note no end point is established yet)
• Date of publishing typically ends the statement, so that the final form appears as: Smith, Joe. "Interesting article: Today." Encyclopedia Smith. London: Smith Publishing House, pp. 181–193, 2010.
• International Standard Book Number (ISBN) (Optional but seems to have become de rigueur in Wiki use as it does provide some additional information as to a source.) The ISBN and ISSN (International Standard Serial Number); serial refers to periodical or journal (magazine); numbers were established by booksellers in 1965 to provide a source of publishing information as it represents a code that identifies country of origin, publisher and language. The first series known as ISBN:10 were given as a 10 digit number, often separated by hyphens until 2005 when they were supplemented and sometimes replaced in 2005 by the ISBN:13 code that has a 13-digit code to accommodate more titles in publication. The example would now read: Smith, Joe. "Interesting article: Today." Encyclopedia Smith. London: Smith Publishing House, pp. 181–193, 2010. ISBN 980-2345623456. The ISBN number being a separate and optional entry is treated as a sentence in its own.

• • • Now as to the canard that this is a unique system, please check any article in the Wiki aviation project group. As you already must have determined, there are innumerable referencing systems in place in Wikipedia, some of them entirely made-up or unique to the developer. The system above is not one of these hybrids or original styles, but based on current bibliographical and referencing style guides in use by publishing houses and "professional" editors. How do I know this? I was a reference librarian for 30 years before becoming an author and editor of an aviation periodical and editor for other publishing houses for book publishing. Nothing I have stated is unique, new or out of line with current referencing and bibliographical notations; I had used library templates for over 20 years as many libraries I administered were being converted from an archaic card catalog to an electronic cataloging system. As data was reconciled into an electronic data base, the use of the MAchine Readable Cataloging format, designed by the Library of Congress in the late 1960s allowed libraries to convert their card catalogs. MARC was not infallible and librarians still had to manually reassign cataloging, so the old system never died. In applying logic to an Internet-based encyclopedia, the same format was simply adapted to new times. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

• • • • Where it gets realllllllly tricky is in applying the coda of Author. Title. Publisher's location: Publisher, Date. ISBN (optional). to a non-print reference source, but here is the logic. Use the same format and you get: Smith, Joe. {{[}}http://en.encyclopediasmith.com "Interesting article: Today."{{]}} Encyclopediasmith.com. , 2010. Retrieved on 4 November, 2010. The referencing and bibliographical notation still works in all forms including adding a url to point to the exact title, but the url/title is now the active "hot point" to retrieve the information. Due to the vagaries of an Internet location, a retrieval, sometimes known as an "access" date is given, so that at least a fixed point of reference is established. If the url is discontinued, there is sometimes a chance to locate an archived version if the original url is known. Bzuk (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey.

Thanks for this exhaustive description. You've really gone out of your way (more than the extra mile) to clarify this for me. It's much appreciated. But I still think this style looks really - really - awkward. Inserting a period/full stop where there isn't one in the source; really, really strange. So (as you might suspect), I have a couple of questions.

In my experience, the habit of putting periods and commas inside quotes is purely North American - and this is not a North American aircraft. So, this is my first question: are you sure that this style of referencing is international, and not just North American?

Next question: how do you explain that the example you're referring to doesn't look the same as the references in the Gripen article? I've pasted it below. As you can see, the periods are clearly outside the quotation marks. You must admit that this is confusing, as the guidelines seem to contradict what you are advocating. Comments?

A third question: I've suggested the use of cite web, cite book and cite journal templates in the Gripen article. Any objections?

Friends again (and not vandals)?

HandsomeFella (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Example pasted from Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style#Webpages (plain, permalinked, and archived) (indentation added):

Some webpage have permalinks, which are URLs that access a copy of the page that is archived on the website itself. If a permalink is available, you should normally use that instead of the URL at which you first found the article. Wikipedia articles, for example, change constantly, but permalink references are available to each version of an article. Here, for example, is the reference to a version of Wikipedia's article for the 16th U. S. Poet Laureate that existed on 2008-07-28:

• Wikipedia editors (2008-07-28). "Kay Ryan". Wikipedia. Retrieved 2008-07-28. {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help)

If there is no permalink for a webpage, consider creating an archive copy of it yourself by using an on-demand archiving service. WebCite (http://www.webcitation.org/) is one of the on-demand services. Here is the same "Open Source" reference based on a copy of the webpage that was archived by an editor on 2008-05-27:

• Perens, Bruce (2006-07-24). "The Open Source Definition (Annotated)". Open Source Initiative. Archived from the original on 2008-05-27.

End of example.

Okay, never meant to imply that you were a vandal only that actions would be interpreted that way. I certainly have no abiding interest in feuding or carrying on vendettas, so I do consider you one of the brotherhood, as your other contributions have repeatedly shown.

As to some of your concerns, I will address each issue. First another major canard is the use of the citation templates in Wikipedia. They are NOT like the MARC record templates that I had been using as an example of the successful use of reference templates. The MARC record template instituted by the US Library of Congress was meticulously designed and provided a precise output into the style of preference for the library collection of materials. This does not happen with the citation templates as they first of all were created with only one referencing style, or I should say a hybrid style, based on the APA or American Psychiatric Association.

In a few words, the issues are:

1. Useage in Wikipedia is highly influenced by the "garbage in, garbage out" syndrome.
2. Cite templates are presently incorrectly formatted and have "bugs" that were never addressed properly by their designers. despite many efforts to re-draw the templates, they are still rampant with errors in format. I can actually re-write the templates, but it takes so much time and effort, that I finally have abandoned that practice.
3. Cite templates were intended for neophytes and casual users (certainly not someone like you who is attempting to make a difference!) to have a bibliographic and referencing tool that would make references available.
4. Cite templates were written in the simplified American Psychiatric Association (APA) style guide that was intended for short-cut editing and does not allow for multiple authors, changes in publication date/location or non-print media.
5. Cite templates were never recommended, nor approved for use in Wikipedia, but were offered as an alternative means of referencing.
6. Once a referencing style is in use and accepted as it was in this article, it is contingent on all other editors to maintain and follow that style guide consistently. It is a difficult thing to "mix" style guides for editing purposes and it is recommenced to establish a style guide, which was done and stick with it, unless there is an overwhelming reason to change to another style.
7. The old canard that cite templates produced meta data that would be somehow in the future, melted into the templating systems to come is long discarded.

Your perceptions of style differences in cataloging information is entirely accurate as each editor works from a master or "house style" guide to punctuation, spelling and use of idioms, idiosynchroncies and non-standard useage. In Wikipedia, there is a "house guide" of sorts wherein that editors typically instill "order" or "consistency" via the use of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style or MOS, which again is an ever-changing and updated "guideline" but does help set some parameters of use.

The style issues are:

1. Identifying the title, when there are two or more titles cited has led to the standard use of "quotation marks" to isolate the first title of an article, excerpt or section title, from a main source title such as a magazine title, encyclopedia, website or other. Where you see a difficulty in that punctuation falls inside brackets or other punctuation is sometimes referred to as North American convention, but it is actually the standard for most publishers worldwide (again, most, but not all). I can certainly see you apprehension as to adding a full stop/period inside a bracket where you may not have been familiar with academic referencing styles that use this style. In Wikipedia, I have seen both, either or a combination of the styles, and when that occurs, it is usually reconciled by reverting to one style only.
2. Dates are written out in words rather than ISO or numerical format in Wikipedia when there is an overwhelming use in the article body of the written style. Due to the difficulty in many readers and editors identifying an ISO date or some configuration of numerical dating, as in 11-12-08, 2008-11-12, or even 08-12-11. Is the date November 12, 2008, December 11, 2008, November 8, 2012, August 11, 2012 and ad infinitum... Many editors simply choose to eliminate the confusion and write out the date: 12 November 2008 (military, international format) or November 12, 2008 (American/US, familiar/popular format).

In looking at your two examples, I see lots of style issues that have to be addressed. In the first example, is the author really the Wikipedia editors? or is that a made-up "fill-in-blanks" entry, which I suspect is the case. In the absence of an author or a clearly established author, the next entry point is the title. The style I would choose/advocate/prefer would be classed as "scratch editing" and would show the output as: "Kay Ryan". Wikipedia, 28 July 2008. Retrieved: 28 July 2008. (You may have to read the citation in edit style to see where the punctuation is placed.) In the second example, a very confusing dual source is being introduced. If the original URL is no longer able to be accessed, an archived version is acceptable but having both simply serves to confuse the reader. Using "scratch editing", I would show the output as: Perens, Bruce. "The Open Source Definition (Annotated)." Open Source Initiative, originally cited in 24 July 2006, retrieved via webcitation.org, 27 May 2008. (Since the citation template output uses the term "retrieved", I often replace "accessed" with "retrieved", and the placement of the periods is a bit arbitrary as I have used the period falling outside the punctuation, but that change is so incidental that it can fall outside the punctuation with no substantial impact on the output.) FWiW, more to come, let's keep in touch. Bzuk (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Please do not change the name of the template. Intoronto1125 (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. You must be kidding. Are you accusing me of vandalism? First of all, do you really prefer that chryptic name, "2010WOIHMStandingsA", over "2010 Winter Olympics men's ice hockey group A standings"? Well, if you really do, that's your opinion, but I wouldn't dream of calling you a vandal just because we have differing views. Now get your act together, go back in your tracks, and see if you haven't made a mistake. Think twice before you go and call people names. I'll wait here. HandsomeFella (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First I am sorry if you think I thought you were vandalizing, you were not. Second this "template" was the best for the situation in my opinion. I am truly sorry if you think I was calling you a vandalizer, hope you accept my apology. I prefer "2010WOIHMStandingsA", because most templates in wikipedia are like that, they are named in short form and are meant to be written as fast as possible. In conclusion please consider my apology and I hope I have not offended you in any way. Intoronto1125 (talk) 03:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, apology accepted. Well, there will of course always be different views on things, but take a look at this category and its sub-categories: Category:2010 Winter Olympics ice hockey templates. You'll find that the templates are pretty neatly designed, named and organized. There is a system to it. About the "problem" of having long names: in this case it isn't a problem, because the templates in question will not be added to many more pages, if any at all. The pages that use them already exist. There is no point in going back to using the old redirects. So please don't. Thanks. HandsomeFella (talk) 07:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! Intoronto1125 (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoyed having an argument with you lol. Looking forward to working with you in 2011! Intoronto1125 (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should read WP:ENGVAR. Some of your changes are good, but it is not Wikipedia policy to go around changing date formats just because someone is not from the United States. I figured maybe you'd not seen this. Clearly UK subjects use UK English, US uses US, all others leave in the original language/dating in which the article was written.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see that WP:ENGVAR says anything about date format. Btw, I certainly hope that more than "some" of my changes are good. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{help}} Hello anyone!

I'd like some expert help with a couple of templates in Category:2008 Summer Olympics water polo group standings templates. As you can see, I've created a couple of analogue templates for men's and women's group standings in the water polo tournaments of the 2008 Summer Olympics. The strangest thing is that the national squad names of the men's teams left-align, while those of the women's teams center-align. I can't see why there is a difference. Ok, there is a center-align command – without which the numbers columns would look awkward – but then why aren't the men's squad names also center-aligned? Could there be something in the wp and wpw templates that causes the difference?

Thanks in advance

HandsomeFella (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! You are just missing a little code, I'll correct it and show you if you don't mind :-)

Kind regards, Captain n00dle\^Talk 13:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that would be great! please go ahead, and I'll check the diff. Thanks! HandsomeFella (talk) 13:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the two diffs: [1] & [2]

You had set the entire table to align="center", you then have to specify the cells to align="left"

Each cell has an "options" field before it seperated by a pipe "|" that's where you put it.

Hope that makes sense! Have a nice day, and happy editing, Kind Regards, Captain n00dle\^Talk 13:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must be blind. Why didn't I see that? Many thanks! HandsomeFella (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those words do not exist in British English, which is what the articles to which those navboxes relate were written in. Please respect WP:ENGVAR. – PeeJay 02:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I have the right to respond wherever I choose; as long as you can read it and respond to it, it doesn't matter where I reply. Second, if you look at the Oxford English Dictionary, you will see that words of that ilk are written as hyphenated words. Furthermore, FIFA uses hyphens in those words, as do the articles to which the navboxes relate. – PeeJay 21:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Space Shuttle Challenger

{{#switch: {{{2}}} | 1 = [[Space Shuttle {{{1}}}|Space Shuttle ''{{{1}}}'']] | 2 = [[Space Shuttle {{{1}}}|Space Shuttle ''{{{1}}}'' (OV-{{#switch:{{{1}}} | Pathfinder = 098 | Challenger = 099 | Enterprise = 101 | Columbia = 102 | Discovery = 103 | Atlantis = 104 | Endeavour = 105 | ??? }})]] | 3 = [[Space Shuttle {{{1}}}|''{{{1}}}'']] | 4 = [[Space Shuttle {{{1}}}|''{{{1}}}'' (OV-{{#switch:{{{1}}} | Pathfinder = 098 | Challenger = 099 | Enterprise = 101 | Columbia = 102 | Discovery = 103 | Atlantis = 104 | Endeavour = 105 | ??? }})]] | 5 = Space Shuttle ''{{{1}}}'' | 6 = Space Shuttle ''{{{1}}}'' (OV-{{#switch:{{{1}}} | Pathfinder = 098 | Challenger = 099 | Enterprise = 101 | Columbia = 102 | Discovery = 103 | Atlantis = 104 | Endeavour = 105 | ??? }}) | 7 = ''{{{1}}}'' | 8 = ''{{{1}}}'' (OV-{{#switch:{{{1}}} | Pathfinder = 098 | Challenger = 099 | Enterprise = 101 | Columbia = 102 | Discovery = 103 | Atlantis = 104 | Endeavour = 105 | ??? }}) | [[Space Shuttle {{{1}}}|Space Shuttle ''{{{1}}}'']] }}

• - Space Shuttle Challenger
• 1 Space Shuttle Challenger
• 2 Space Shuttle Challenger (OV-099)
• 3 Challenger
• 4 Challenger (OV-099)
• 5 Space Shuttle Challenger
• 6 Space Shuttle Challenger (OV-099)
• 7 Challenger
• 8 Challenger (OV-099)

{{2012 Summer Olympics Great Britain men's water polo team roster}}

{{2012 Summer Olympics Great Britain women's water polo team roster}}

The policy as spelled out at Wikipedia:Article titles requires that the article title is to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This applies to the title of the article – but within the text of the article, pursuant to WP:MOSBIO, the person's legal name should usually appear first in the article. I trust that explains the current Wikipedia policy as it relates to this issue. Dolovis (talk) 13:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop deleting proper redirects. Please be aware that this issue has been fully discussed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English) with no consensus being reached to support the preference of diacritics over English in article titles. This means that the policies of WP:AT and WP:EN remain in full force and effect. It is your edits to delete proper redirects which is contrary to policy. Please stop. Dolovis (talk) 13:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your speedy delete nominations of valid redirects is controversial. You are advised to immediately stop such practice or you may be reported to ANI. Dolovis (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might have noticed the discussion on your own talkpage. HandsomeFella (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please not get into a revert war with Dolovis over this? There are other ways to resolve the dispute, but constantly reverting each other over the speedy deletion tagging of redirects resulting from his page moves is unnecessarily disruptive: firstly, tagging a redirect for deletion causes it to get listed as an uncategorized article, which the categorization project then has to deal with — and secondly, if this keeps going one or the both of you is going to be at risk of getting a temporary WP:3RR block. And in case you didn't know this, tagging a redirect for deletion is only necessary if the redirect has more than one edit in its history; if there's only one edit, such as the page move itself, then the system will still let any editor just move the page back without needing an administrator to manually delete the redirect first, meaning that the only reason you can't just move the pages back to their original titles now is that you yourself added a second edit by the act of tagging the redirect in the first place. There are numerous administrators who are willing to step in and resolve the dispute if anyone gets out of line — but you really need to follow the proper processes for resolving the issue. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't stop editwarring over this right now, I'm going to block you for one hour. Bearcat (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I'm not "constantly reverting" anyone. I have made a number of one-time reversions of Dolovis's reverts of my speedy deletion requests on the redirects that were created by his unilateral page moves. Dolovis ignores longstanding concensus at WP:HOCKEY, and at the same time he refers to guidelines that simply do not exist. So he's the one who should be blocked. See the discussion on his talkpage and the discussion here, just to mention a few places.

I will however stop reverting Dolovis, provided he stops making controversial pages moves, until there is either a new concensus, which I – contrary to Dolovis – would respect, or the existing concensus is agreed upon again. We can't have editors acting like Dolovis does. Blocking me and not Dolovis – if that indeed is the case – would be rewarding rogue editors, while blocking editors that try to fix what he's undoing, thereby cementing his rogue actions as faits accomplis. I don't see that he can obtain a new concensus (it's been tried before), so somebody will have to revert his moves sooner or later.

Cheers. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, Dolovis will get blocked too if his behaviour continues. But you were politely asked by two different editors, and given a block warning, to stop tagging the redirects, but chose to keep on tagging anyway — whereas he hasn't made any edits to Wikipedia at all since at least half an hour before he got his first polite request to cut it out. Which means you actively ignored multiple requests — but while it's still possible that he might ignore the request, as of right now he hasn't done so yet. The problem here is that we've got two valid naming guidelines that are potentially in conflict with each other — so it's not so much about who's right and who's wrong as it is about the fact that what you've been doing just isn't a productive way to handle the issue. I hope that's clear. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did, but – as I explained in the section below – I observed the orange line, but believed it was Dolovis who posted another message, so I didn't read it immediately. And it's absolutely clear. Sorry.

Concerning the conflicting guidelines, WP:AT is weak when it comes to recommendations on diacritics in article titles. The only mention is for the word canon versus cañon (for canyon), and there isn't even a recommendation for either one. That is what Dolovis relies on! The word isn't even a proper noun, so no conclusions whatsoever can be drawn from that concerning personal names.

Cheers. HandsomeFella (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at his talk page, you'll note that I have advised him that WP:UE is a weak and non-overriding guideline which can and does have significant exceptions — and you'll also note that somebody has brought a complaint against him at WP:ANI. But again, it's not really about who's right and who's wrong here — I agree that on the basic principle, you are in the right and he's in the wrong — so much as it's about productive vs. unproductive ways to resolve the dispute (editwarring being the latter.) It would have been pointless for me to editblock him at the same time as you, because he wasn't online at the time anyway — it's only a useful thing to do if you actually catch somebody in the act, because if he doesn't log back on until two hours after I apply a one-hour editblock, then he's completely missed the "punishment" anyway. But that doesn't mean he's being given a free ride, because he is already facing a potentially much higher consequence than a mere 60-minute timeout. Bearcat (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Bearcat, what do we do now? I'd like to contribute to the discussion on the ANI, but I don't know if I should, as it would surely be viewed as biased, especially by Dolovis himself. I'll express my views here instead.

• First, I think he must absolutely be stripped of his admin rights, as they have clearly been abused. He must have such rights, or he wouldn't have been able to revert page moves at that speed. My experience is that a db-g6 delete of a redirect "in the way" of a page move could take days to have executed, or at best hours. Absolutely not minutes. So he must have those rights (I can see no other explanation) – and he must have them revoked. Btw, I believe that his motives for his actions were not only to boost his created-articles count, but also to build up a nice "stock balance" of articles without diacritics to counter or disprove editors who say that diacritics aren't that uncommon in English language. In other words: he tried to kill two birds with one stone. Why else would he be adding articles on Czech and Slovak players specifically?
• Second, a page move ban seems natural, as this is how he went on with his rogue business. 3 months would cool him off a bit. He could still keep on editing articles of course.

As the dust now is settling, we still have a problem. All the moves that Dolovis has made mean that a lot of articles are stored under a name that is not in line with WP:HOCKEY concensus. Lacking clear directions in WP:AT and WP:UE, they should be moved to their respective diacritic version. But if I go about preparing for those moves by posting db-g6's, it would be preceived as I continued editwarring (although it would only mean that I'd reach 2RR on the individual redirects).

Maybe the right way to go about it is this:

1. Review the WP:NHOCKEY criteria, and see if they need an update. If this raises the bar for notability, then maybe several of Dolovis' additions could be deleted, instead of moved. That could possibly be less controversial than moving the pages again (although I doubt it would make Dolovis happier).
2. Then move the remaining pages.

What do you think?

Cheers. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I just noticed that a previously uninvolved editor two previously uninvolved editors moved some of the pages involved in the dispute by copy-pasting the content. I placed a notice on his talkpage their talkpages. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DJSasso has also fixed one.

Just a note, I'm denying your CSD nominations on the hockey redirects. They are not an unlikely misspelling (and really not a misspelling at all) and redirects are cheap. RxS (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I see you are continuing to tag them. Please stop as I mentioned, I'm denying them. RxS (talk) 16:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did see "the orange line", but didn't read it until I was blocked. The requests for speedy deletions are due to page moves to spellings not supported by WP:HOCKEY concensus. Every now and then editors like Dolovis show up and try to impose his views without obtaining a new concensus first. If they are as industrious as he is, there will inevitably be lots of work to fix it, including reverts. Cheers. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note; the one hour block was a warning, a shot across your bows, so to speak. The next one, if you persist in your recent behaviour, will be for significantly longer. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note taken. But here's a friendly tip: take a look at Dolovis's actions and talkpage. It's not necessarily he who reports the other first who is right. Cheers. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realised I was using the term loosely - but it doesn't alter my line of argument. Slavic diacritics are not well-known in the English language and should not be used until/unless they are widely adopted. But I accept others have a different view. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After looking over the discussion at Talk:Volleyball at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament, I wanted to let you know that you're doing a good job - and more importantly, you're doing so in a civil manner. Although I know nothing of your work in other areas, it seems that you have been giving the subject of volleyball considerable care. Keep up the good work, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was very kind of you to say that. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Jaroslav Modry -> Jaroslav Modrý
• Petr Obdrzalek -> Petr Obdržálek
• Patrik Petruska -> Patrik Petruška
• Tomas Pitule -> Tomáš Pitule
• Karel Plasek -> Karel Plášek
• Petr Prikryl -> Petr Přikryl
• Dan Ruzicka -> Dan Růžička
• Jan Stransky -> Jan Stránský
• Pavel Vostrak -> Pavel Vostřák

You have been making changes in many volleyball articles with this note: consistent date format (int'l). According to WP:DATE, both the format that I was previously used as first major contributor is correct, and I haven't found any int'l format. What about this? Oscar 17:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are two conflicting guidelines, one is "first contributor", as you mentioned, and the other is that date format should be selected according to context. The August 21, 2011, format is distinctly North American (United States and Canada), and thus suitable for articles relating to North American subjects mainly. Many articles appears to have been created by editors from North America, and my theory is that they, without giving it much thought, have applied the format that is natural to them, even to articles with no relation to North America. With two conflicting guidelines, one obviously has to yield, and a decision without much thought – my perception, I admit – is worth less that a conscious decision, at least in my world. I could add that most of the articles I've edited recently are small and stubbish, and so there is no distinguishable first contributor.

When there is "international format" dates in an article relating to a North American subject, I of course apply "consistent date fmt (us)".

When it comes to my edit summaries, I admit that there wasn't always inconsistent date format in an article I edited, by interpret it this way: I'm applying consistent date format. ;-) Maybe there's some room for improvement here, the "entry assist" function in the edit summary field makes you lazy, picking the best alternative. I'll see what I can do.

Cheers. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is English Wikipedia, we have WP:MOS, this is the Manual of Style. We cannot go everywhere changing the articles because I just do not like how is look like. According to WP:DATE, for dates of birth and death: For an individual still living: "Serena Williams (born September 26, 1981) this is the format given, it is someone from northamerica we use this, and then for south america another one, not, we need every wikipedia article look with an apropiate format. Thanks for your understanding. Sometimes we need to accept advices, and check and recheck the guidelines. Oscar 22:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, you have to change Fidel Castro and most wikipedia articles, because is NOT distinctly North American (United States and Canada) article. Oscar 22:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to butt in, but if you write encyclopedia articles based on a US-centric convention, that absolutely is not the recommended style, see the above point: date format should be selected according to context. An article on Concorde is written in "Britspeak" and would look entirely incongruous in any other style. Take a look at the article and you will see date, spelling and numerical equivalents are all in the "International" format. See: forum for a further discussion. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Oscar, I think you may have misunderstood some of the guidelines. The date format does not, for instance, depend on whether a person is living or not. Also, take a look at the "Strong national ties" section in WP:DATE. Yes, this is the English wikipedia, and there are several varieties of English, see WP:ENGVAR. I'm saying this, because it seems that English is not your first language (no offense intended, it's not my first language either). Date format in written English is one thing that differs from place to place. Cheers. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made my research by myself , looking at each player's page . I think it would be helpful and it would be great to put it in a table Gpetit89 (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intoronto1125TalkContributions 01:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I would like to join these discussions about Request for Move: Talk:Natasa Janics, Talk:Christina Vukicevic, Talk:Milos Raonic, Talk:Kristina Mladenovic, Talk:Alex Bogdanovic, Talk:Irena Pavlovic, Talk:Andrea Petkovic. Greetings and thanks! :) --Aca Srbin (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2011 (CEST)

I've replied at my talk page. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing Template:volleyball from individual page. it's common in wikipedia. the same situation in Handball, Basketball, Football, see 2010 FIFA World Cup, 2010 FIBA World Championship and etc. I will revert your edits. Mohsen1248 (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can't have this template included on every page mentioning volleyball. A template is typically included on the pages that it links to. "Template:Volleyball" does not link to the individual occurrences (years) of the tournaments. Thus, the template should be included on pages FIVB World League, FIVB World Grand Prix, etc, but not the indiviual years such as 2011 FIVB World League, 2011 FIVB World Grand Prix, etc. Please start a discussion to obtain concensus, but don't revert until one is reached (and only if it ends up favouring your opinion). Cheers. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

why we can't ? what's the logic ? I know the 3RR rule and I won't break it. it's common, if you have problem start discussion and then remove it from all sports pages. as of now, I will revert your edits as much as rules allow. then I wate 24 hours to revert it once again and I won't stop it. cheers. Mohsen1248 (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so childish. If you know the 3RR rule, then you know it should not be perceived as if everyone has "a right" to revert the same page 3 times within 24 hours. It's still edit-warring, and furthermore, it could be viewed as gaming the system. Besides, you can spend your time and effort more constructively than following me around and reverting my edits.

I'll explain the logic to you. If you have a template called "Events at the 2003 Pan American Games", it's logical that it links to all events of those games. It's also logical that it is included in the pages covering the events, e.g. "Volleyball at the 2003 Pan American Games", thus enabling simple cross-navigation between the different events.

Following the same pattern, "Template:Economy of Europe" links to articles like "Economy of Germany", "Economy of Greece", etc. It is included in exactly those pages, but not in every page mentioning "Europe" or "economy" (or possibly both).

The same goes for Template:Volleyball (although I think it should be named Template:International volleyball). It links to the main international regulatory bodies, the recurring international tournaments, etc. It does not link to the individual tournaments (years), and thus it should not be included in them. The reasons: 1) it's not logical, per above, 2) it will make virtually every single issue of every single tournament link to the pages in the template, thereby pointlessly overwhelming the "what links here" pages. If you take a look at Template:Economy of Europe, you'll find that the number of pages including that template is rather limited (to the number of countries in Europe, to be exact).

Hope you'll find this logical.

Cheers. HandsomeFella (talk) 16:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm childish and threatening is not childish ? OK, feel free to name me what you'd like.

your logic is lame, but the main reason I'm against it is simple, it's common in Wikipedia is sports page. (I show you some examples) so I want to keep these consistent. good, I see you open a discussion here. lets see the result. but remember you are the one who change a common thing, not me. and I won't let one user change something that everybody (at least so far) is ok with. Cheers. Mohsen1248 (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your threat of reverting me forever is undoubtedly childish. Your only argument seems to be that "it has has always been like this". Well, that is no valid argument. It's just plain conservatism at its worst. Things have always been "like this" – until somebody changes them.

And "you won't let one user change something that everybody is ok with"? You don't own the articles (consider reading WP:OWN). Has it ever occurred to you that maybe no-one has thought about this question before? And since this is not one of wikipedia's most visited pages, not many people have read it, thus even fewer have contemplated whether or not that template should be there. It's not exactly the most important feature in the article.

One more revert, and I will report you. That is not a threat, it's a promise. HandsomeFella (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Keep your promise. Mohsen1248 (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! It is my responsibility as an administrator to uphold the guidelines the community has approved (in this case, WP:DATERET). Now, I don't occupy all my time here with seeking out the "date format violations", but I do make sure the guidelines are being conformed with once I stumble upon a situation that needs resolving. This isn't personal at all. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 14, 2011; 19:33 (UTC)

Hey. I've started a discussion here. Your input is welcome. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation, but that guideline does not really interest me that much :) I'm merely upholding what it says—if it is changed to say something different, then that's what I'll be upholding. Best of luck to you, however. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 14, 2011; 20:20 (UTC)

Hi, would you be interested in creating the roster pages for the hockey events at the 2012 Winter Youth Olympics? Intoronto1125TalkContributions 22:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I just might. ;-) Do you have sources? HandsomeFella (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All I have is the wiki articles (on the team participating) and Canada's roster [3] and the USA's roster [4]. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 00:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is Austria's [5] Intoronto1125TalkContributions 05:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I'll see what I can do. HandsomeFella (talk) 08:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just an update, User:Prayerfortheworld has completed the USA roster over here. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 15:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I try to keep an eye on everything that happens in the Portal namespace, so I've seen the time you've spent fixing redirects there. May I draw your attention to WP:REDIRECT#NOTBROKEN? It's probably not worth the effort.

But full marks for finding and fixing redirects in navigation templates such as Template:Arab–Israeli diplomacy. You may like to try using the "link classifier" script, User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js, which among other things turns links to redirects from the usual blue to green, making them instantly obvious. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the tip. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly bit of advice... It does not help to poke at someone the way you are right after your ANI report led to their block. Just leave him be. Resolute 16:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allright. I was going to anyway. It wasn't mean't as poking at him, but rather a (somewhat immature, I admit) wish of not letting him have the last word, especially as that last word IMO was not reflecting the truth. Thanks. HandsomeFella (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just step away at this point unless he breaks his ban. Best to leave him be. -DJSasso (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. It was only that he IMO wasn't entirely truthful in the edit summary. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If he wants to make himself look worse let him. It does you no good to bicker with him. Only makes you look worse as well. -DJSasso (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dj. But he's (deliberately?) saying the weirdest untrue things. What planet does he live on if he thinks that he can disprove diffs? He's using every trick possible, which is why I once asked "who'd buy a used car from Dolovis?".

I'm contemplating a rebuttal (see below) of what he's saying of me at WP:AN. Do you think I should refrain from it? HandsomeFella (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by HandsomeFella[edit]

Although I don't think this debate isn't getter any more fruitful by the number of editors, I just can't let Dolovis' allegations stand unanswered. I won't go into the diacritics debate here – since this is not what should be discussed on this page – other than noting how conveniently Dolovis always forgets the sentence "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources", when he refers to WP:COMMONNAME.

• I don't know what I have done in wikipedia that could be perceived as FAITACCOMPLI. I am not the one who has double-edited redirects in order to prevent other editors from moving pages boldly. I have edited some double redirects after pages moves. Some redirects are the results of page moves done by myself, some are double redirects that I have come across by chance. Editing double redirects is what you are asked to do on the Special:Move result page, so it can't be that bad. Editing double redirects isn't the same thing as double-editing redirects, although I realize that Dolovis would love to confuse matters here (too).
• Regarding my page moves provided by the diffs above (I'm numbering them 1-10, as their numbers will change when other sections above this one are archived):
  • Diff #1. Yumilka Ruiz to Yumilka Ruíz: the spelling is supported by an English language source in the article. Dolovis is always stressing the use of English-language sources, so what's the problem?
  • Diff #2. Louis-Leopold Robert to Louis-Léopold Robert: I "admit" to moving that article.
  • Diff #3. This is not a move diff. It's about the amusement park Six Flags. Although I recall having read the article, I can't find any trace of me having edited it, let alone moved it.
  • Diff #4-10. These moves were all done during the period 26 June–4 July, before I was aware of the WP:RM process. This is the beginning of the flare-up that eventually resulted in Dolovis' first ban for double-editing redirects. Dolovis moved the pages in the other direction, so who's he to blame anyone?

HandsomeFella (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, there's no exemption for Quebec-based hockey articles, as they too - are North American based. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Yes, I know that Quebec is in North America, but I think I have seen names of Quebecois teams spelled with diacritics in en-wiki. So there might be an exception that neither you nor me know of. I'm not saying that there is one, I just don't know. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there has been Goodday since the league uses them we have typically left them on QMJHL articles. You have been part of discussions about this a number of times. -DJSasso (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, they're to be pipe-linked, removed etc, on all North American based hockey articles. Let's not start something up here, Dj. GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not...you are well aware we use them for any league that uses them. You have been in this discussion countless times it is getting tiring that you "forget" that you agreed about that whenever it suits you. -DJSasso (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All North American based hockey articles, will have diacritics pipe-linked, removed etc. At WP:HOCKEY - the compromise says All North American hockey pages should have player names without diacritics. GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use some common sense. That refers to English leagues and you know it. -DJSasso (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All North American based. If you want to argue this point at WP:HOCKEY? that's your choice. But, I'm continuing to follow the compromise. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has been argued at wp:hockey. And has been decided the QMJHL doesn't fall under it. Which is why the team names etc all still have diacritics. -DJSasso (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll continue to follow the compromise as is, All North American. Hopefully, you're not planning on starting an edit-spat with me. Forcing diacritics on player names at North American based articles - isn't exactly keeping the peace. GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you will likely be reverted. You keep trying to provoke arguments where you know things are settled such as this one. Looks like you are already failing what you claimed you would do in your Rfc/U. -DJSasso (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who pushing the button on this topic. For 'bleep' sake, you've got all the non-North American based articles the way you wish them, so leave the North American ones 'without' diacritics. GoodDay (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No you brought the topic up, which is what you always do and why you got in trouble and had the Rfc/U. -DJSasso (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey HandsomeFella; sorry about this latest spat between myself & Djsasso, occuring on your talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You recently worked on the Stephen Harper template, eh? He looks so different from when I was in high school with him.
I just wanted to suggest to you that you create a user page. I didn't have one for ages either.
But serious editors should not be appearing in red.

Wikipedia:Babel
en This user is a native speaker of the English language.
Search user languages

It can be something really basic, like this. Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I'm trying to render the date format in two templates, Template:2008 Summer Olympics United States men's volleyball team roster and Template:2008 Summer Olympics United States men's volleyball team roster, according to a parameter given in pages that transclude them by passing the parameter to the dts template. It works fine mostly, but when I use the dts template in the cite web template, it seems to ignore it. Can anybody find out why? If one experiments with changing the default value in the template, and then previews it, it works. So why does it not work when the template is transcluded in from another page?

Million thanks.

HandsomeFella (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No parameter given:

{{2008 Summer Olympics United States men's volleyball team roster}}

Parameter df set to mdy:

{{2008 Summer Olympics United States men's volleyball team roster|df=mdy}}

As you can see, the date in the ref is rendered dmy regardless, while the birth dates within the table changes format according to the parameter.

I've been investigating at User:John of Reading/X2 and User:John of Reading/X3. I don't think this is going to work. The parser collects the reference text when it sees the "ref" tag, but only tries to expand the templates when it gets to the "reflist". At that point there is no "df" parameter available.

You could post at WP:VPT, alerting them to this thread, since that's where the template experts live. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks John, I think I understand the problem (still confused, but on a higher level). I'm hoping that some VP(t) person has a solution.

HandsomeFella (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(coming here from VPT) I think that you're needlessly complicating things. These rosters deal exclusively with a US topic, so per WP:STRONGNAT only one date format is suitable. Pass the pure mdy date to the |date= in {{cite web}}, without pushing it through {{dts}}, and nobody should complain. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, each of these templates – there's one for each participating team of the tournaments, 24 in total – is transcluded from two articles: the "home" article (describing the own nation's participation in the Games), and either of the tournament articles. Since the Olympics are truly international, that kind of date format is used there. But in the templates concerning the US and Canada teams, the df parameter presents an possibility to display dates in the mdy format, which is used in the US articles, and sometimes also the Canada ones. I'd like that formatting to take effect even for the refs. Is there any possibility?

HandsomeFella (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I used the {{#tag:ref}} parser function to generate the <ref>...</ref> element; this allows processing of template parameters, see here. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. A million thanks. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Stanford University, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Stanford University. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

ralphamale (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[6]

Hi. The article Birth control movement in the United States uses serial commas. I think you removed a few recently. Could you please restore them, per MOS:SERIAL ("editors may use either convention on Wikipedia so long as each article is consistent within itself")? thanks. --Noleander (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed them, so it doesn't anymore (it's not an inherent property). As you said yourself, consistent use either way is acceptable. If you want to revert me, you can do it yourself, I won't revert back. In that case, would you then please keep a missing comma that I actually inserted after a dependent clause? Thanks. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to "undo" but there have been intervening edits, so it wont undo. Would you mind doing it manually? See MOS:RETAIN. --Noleander (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I like it the way it is, which is why I made that edit (the added missing comma aside). If you want to re-introduce the commas, you'll have to do it yourself, I'm afraid. Cheers. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, I find your attitude rather offensive. I'll revert the comma changes. Thanks for nothing. --Noleander (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we were having a nice and polite chat, but I was obviously mistaken. Are you sure you're not mixing up differing opinions with attitude? By the way, MOS:RETAIN refers to national varieties of English, such as British, American, Australian _{(no serial comma)} or Jamaican English, not serial commas. Have a nice day. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. This is a copy of a note I left on Peterkingiron's Talk page, occurs to me that you also are familiar with WP:COMMONNAME and so on: Hi, I need help with drafting a proposal for a simple addition to BLP which will advise accurate spelling (including diacritics for Latin alphabets, according to current citizenship) of Living People's names in ledes and title. I asked User talk:Prolog for help on his Talk page, and put a draft there. Your input would be appreciated before proposing at WT:BLP. If you have anything to add also appreciated. Trying to close off future sports-stub generated conflict at wp, plus ensure respect/accuracy for Living People.In ictu oculi (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to diacritics guideline discussion at WT:BLP

Hi, you were one of 100+ Users who has commented on a living person Requested Move featuring diacritics (e.g. the é in Beyoncé Knowles) in the last 30 days. Following closure of Talk:Stephane Huet RM, a tightening of BLP guidelines is proposed. Your contribution is invited to WT:BLP to discuss drafting a proposal for tightening BLP accuracy guidelines for names. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to duplicate this invite on the pages of others who have commented, for or against. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	For excellent work on foreign relations templates. LibStar (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, my first barnstar! HandsomeFella (talk) 09:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your recent edit at Royal Marriages Act 1772 to bypass a redirect link. No real harm done, just thought I'd point out that making an edit for no other reason than fixing a redirect doesn't necessarily improve the article, and it does add a history version that needs to be stored (see WP:NOTBROKEN). Of course, for the same reason, there's no need for anyone to revert your edit. --LarryJeff (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that, and usually I fix a dozen of things in one edit. In this particular case though, it was the only change. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You scold me for asking an editor to stop his unilateral page moves & then you scold another editor for making a unilateral page move. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly. I asked you – and had to ask again to get an answer – to clarify if the wording on your talk page was meant as a threat. I politely asked Leesw616 to at least temporarily halt his moves – n.b. without implying any consequences – and wait for a consensus. You need to look up scold in the wictionary. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages[edit]

Merely delete your post after I make correction. GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Merely"? What does that mean in this context? Is English really your native language? If it isn't, your actions are even more weird than I've been thinking until now. Do you possibly mean "please"? In any case, the answer is no, since comments and discussions on talkpages should not be redacted. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. HandsomeFella (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HandsomeFella, you might wish to note this, restored after deleted 7 days. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In a recent edit to the page Houla massacre, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk.

Apparently this is an issue which you have been called on also previously. Please realize that it is inappropriate to make your own delineation between what you apparently label "international date format" versus North American date format. That is simply not supported by Wikipedia guidelines. __meco (talk) 08:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have not changed the variety of English in that article, and I cannot find that WP:ENGVAR applies to the date format. Please point out the specific sentence that supports your claim. Anyway, the date format in the article was inconsistent (and I'm sure you are aware that wp guidelines recommend using consistent format), and, having to choose one of the formats, I chose the most logical one: international. I assume you didn't revert that. Cheers. HandsomeFella (talk) 08:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you have indeed reverted it. How childish. You are aware that the article now, thanks to your actions, is in violation of the wp guideline of date format consistency? HandsomeFella (talk) 09:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Strong national ties to a topic follows the principles set out in the guideline I mentioned above. __meco (talk) 10:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does it indeed? So the uprising in Syria has a strong national tie to the US? I didn't know that. Could you explain how? HandsomeFella (talk) 13:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, what you are referring to is probably Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Retaining the existing format topic. While you, in some formal and bureaucratic way may be right, you reverted the article back to an inferior version, reintroducing 1) US-centric dates (to an article without any ties to the US whatsoever), 2) however inconsistently applied, and 3) missing commas after 2nd element (see WP:Copyedit, section Common edits, bullet point 9). You know, it doesn't hurt to read WP:IAR once in a while, in essence: "If a rule makes wikipedia worse, break it".

Pedantry and mastery are opposite attitudes toward rules. To apply a rule to the letter, rigidly, unquestioningly, in cases where it fits and in cases where it does not fit, is pedantry... To apply a rule with natural ease, with judgment, noticing the cases where it fits, and without ever letting the words of the rule obscure the purpose of the action or the opportunities of the situation, is mastery.

I was going to tidy up the article Timeline of the 2011–2012 Syrian uprising (January–April 2012) (linked to from "March 15" in the Houla massacre article), where the date format, especially for the month of March – look at the headings! – is anything but consistent, but with you around, I guess that's no idea. Good luck with your mess. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summing up[edit]

Meco has now replied (on his talkpage) that he has no more comments. That means he cannot come up with any good answers.

The article had inconsistent date formats before my edit. From the two inconsistent formats in the article, one had to be chosen. By reverting my edit, Meco reintroduced the inconstistency to the article. When that was pointed out to him, he changed the article to obtain consistence. But Meco chose the format least suitable, the US-centric format – although the article has no ties whatsoever to the United States. One can only conclude that he did not want to admit he was wrong.

HandsomeFella (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully ask you to reconsider your statement on the request for arbitration regarding GoodDay. What languages he speaks is not pertinent, and speculating based on his user name isn't helpful—it only fuels potential digressions into language-based bias towards diacritics, and distracts from open discussion on non-productive editing behaviour on GoodDay's part. isaacl (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All right then. It didn't add much anyway. Cheers. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your consideration! isaacl (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[7][8]. They all name the squads, not rosters. --Aleenf1 16:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 12, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have no issue with the edits made at Template:Qc Uni, but I do have issue with the reasoning given behind. Camel-case is not the justification for your edits as there was no camel-case present, but MOS:CAPS would be what we follow for changes like this.--UnQuébécois (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the edit history? It had been moved without consensus back in April, by a user who has since been blocked. That move had been reverted. So clearly there is no consensus for a move, and you need to use WP:RM. StAnselm (talk) 22:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English) ‎In ictu oculi (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I saw you moved this page to the "correct spelling", can you please give me your sources? I was not able to find good sources for this spelling... Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. At es.wiki, his name is spelled with an é. I assume that the Spaniards know what they're doing on Spanish entities. Cheers. HandsomeFella (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, so you do not have a source for this... wikipedia can not be the source for wikipedia? Also Spanish wikipedia does not show a source for the spelling "Vallés". The source they have show his name as "Vallès"! Now also our English article shows a spelling which does not correspond with the source...

Spanish Olympic Committee http://www.coe.es/coe/bd_perso.nsf/636f272617572203c12572080082e57c/65fa3065143dca3dc1256fdd003f1426?OpenDocument also shows his name as "Valles" (without accent). Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 11:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the source they have spells it "Vallès", the spelling before you moved the page in the first place. But this needs looking into, so I'll place a question at his page in es.wiki. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also placed a question at the major contributor's talk page. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very cool! Many thanks for this good idea! Perhaps one spelling is Spanish and one is Catalan? Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 13:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed a question at two users' talkpages, but so far none of them have edited after I placed the question. They have edited recently, so they are active. Just to let you know the status. HandsomeFella (talk) 07:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Perhaps they are also not sure? :-) Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of them has finally replied now, and according to the team sheet he found, it seems to be spelled "Vallès". So I think we will have to move it again. And we could add the team sheet to the references section. HandsomeFella (talk) 08:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your help and the correction! Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion on moving the article Côte d'Ivoire to Ivory Coast. You are being notified since you participated in a previous discussion on this topic. Please join the discussion here if you are interested. TDL (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your recent edit at Los Angeles Kings, in conjunction with an exchange between you and GoodDay on the latter's talk page, suggests that you may have been collaborating with GoodDay to skirt his topic ban regarding diacritics, as imposed in his recent ArbCom case. Please be aware that this issue is being brought up at WP:AE. — Richwales 21:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not collaborating with GoodDay. In fact, I have been one of his critics (which you would have known, if you'd followed the arbcase). This is why I have GoodDay's userpage on my watchlist, which in turn is why I noticed his comment. The corrections I've made follow WP:MOS and the project notice at WP:HOCKEY. It is not a personal thing between me and GoodDay, so I find no reason to abstain from correcting errors, just because GoodDay has pointed them out. But you can be sure that I won't act as his proxy. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can also add that I have been making edits like that many times before. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest edit, as best I can tell, changed four names (Ian Laperrière, Anže Kopitar, Éric Bélanger, and Mattias Norström) to non-accented versions. Upon closer examination of the article, I see that these particular names were written inconsistently in the article (sometimes with diacritics, sometimes without) — so I'll concede that one might reasonably say that the names should be changed as needed to make them consistent. As for the statement in WP:HOCKEY (which I'm guessing you were alluding to) that player names in North American hockey pages should not use diacritics, this guideline appears to have been added via this 2007 edit by GoodDay, so I imagine it might not be on solid ice anymore in light of the ArbCom decision — though I'm not expecting that people in general would have kept track of when this edit happened or who had made it. In any event, I do still believe the timing here was curious enough to justify asking a serious question. — Richwales 23:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the origins of the changes to the hockey guideline were discussed in the arbitration case, and I would imagine given GoodDay's well-known position on diacritics that at least some long-time editors in the hockey project would have some memory of the origins. Nonetheless, as discussed in the links I provided, the guideline has been affirmed through consensus agreement over the years by many editors. isaacl (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was indeed GoodDay who added the notice, but it is nevertheless a long-standing consensus in the hockey project, a compromise as the result of a diacritics discussion. I assume you don't imagine that the project notice would have been there for five years, if it wasn't a consensus? So it's on "solid ice" allright. HandsomeFella (talk) 06:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The irony of the situation is the notice was created to stop GoodDay from warring with IPs about diacritics which he had been doing during that time period. With him now topic banned there probably isn't much of a need for the notice since most people in the project rarely touch diacritics to change them from one version to the other. -DJSasso (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not want to touch on the subject during the Arbcom case, as it would have muddied the water but to a large degree the hockey compromise is not really enforceable if the larger community does object to it, as it could be argued it does not make sense to deliberately misspell the link target but then correcting it in the wikicode. But, and that is why sofar noone has really challenged it, the target audience of the articles in question does not know any better. I for one would not go out and change all those links, even if that was to be removed from the hockey guidelines but I might fix the odd one I do come accross in my wikitravels. Agathoclea (talk) 12:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it was created in the absence of a wiki-wide consensus. We call it a compromise for that reason, it isn't a true consensus. It was just a truce to stop the edit wars and move wars that had been happening a few years back. It has actually been challenged a few times outside of the project but it always comes back to the no consensus on a wiki-wide scale which means its acceptable as a project MOS. That being said he was pretty much the only editor that was very strictly enforcing it. Most other ice hockey editors didn't care enough to change them in one direction or the other. -DJSasso (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement isn't being sought against you, not sure why you added that section. You have no arbcom sanctions against you. That request is only about GoodDay. -DJSasso (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I can understand HandsomeFella's concern here, I don't currently believe any enforcement action is called for (or even being considered) against him at this time. I did initially (and still do) believe that the activity on GoodDay's talk page and the Kings article justified reasonable concern and a request for an explanation — but I am satisfied by HandsomeFella's explanation, and as far as I can tell, so is everyone else who has chimed in on the enforcement request. GoodDay's actions and explanations, on the other hand, leave significant worries regarding what he was thinking/expecting; and his stated intention to reject any limits regarding his talk page makes the matter all the more troublesome. — Richwales 21:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So retract it then. HandsomeFella (talk) 06:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. witnessed this, thanks, of course same exists still on 100x other tennis BLPs, 44x of them using this formula site:en.wikipedia.org "tennis player" "known professionally as". But what can be done, 2 or 3 individuals who believe "foreigners" have "English names" will persist in making changes to lede even after an RM. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Btw thanks for your common sense here: FYI. I shouldn't be the only one to implement the result. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one who owe you thanks. Great research and well argumented in many RM's. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HandsomeFella

Thank you very much for the suggestion of having a navbox on the olympic football pages now we have septate pages for each of the groups and the Knock-out stages because it would really improve the look and standand of the pages that I have created and yesterday afternoon I tried to get one set up but sadly it was not sucessful and I have very limited knowedge on how to set these things up so I kindy ask you if you could help to set this up for me, I created the pages and thanks to a few people there have already made a few improvements but there is a long way to go and not much time untill the olympic Tournaments start. I know that here in the UK the Olympic tournments is not seen as high ranking event but it is still a major football event and it deserves the same coverage as other events like the UEFA European Championship and the FIFA World Cup. MOTORAL1987 —Preceding undated comment added 09:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you like this one?

I have added it to the "stage" pages, so you can see it there too.

HandsomeFella (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is fantastic HandsomeFella and will really help to improve the pages, I was wondering if it was possible to do the same for the Hockey Tournament pages please. The only thing I think that needs adding to the Football pages navbox wise is a link for the squads otherwise thats it really good and I hope you will help me to make those pages as detailed as possible but I can only do so much.

Suggestion At the moment I have not created septate pages for the olympic football finals and Bronze Medal matches but I am wondering if they would add to the articles at all by creating such pages.

Suggestion Also I notice work is needed on the women's football tournament pages and wondering if more work is needed on the mens pages but I am very limited on what I can do, I can only really edit texts and add pictures and I am not capable of doing anything else as its too complex for me. ( MOTORAL1987 (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC) )[reply]

I notice you are helping with all olympic pages HandsomeFella so I would also like to hear your view if it would be possible at all to create a detailed venues map showing all the venues which are hosting events during the 2012 summer olympics in central London. I propose three maps of the following locations all highlighted.

1. Olympic Park 2. River & Central Zone 3. Outside of Greater London

It is the only thing missing from the Venues of the 2012 Summer Olympics and Paralympics page so please can we get this sorted out. ( MOTORAL1987 (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC) )[reply]

Cheers One.tenth (talk) 09:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]