User talk:Blue Square Thing/Archive 2

Lowestoft

I think your draft is a massive improvement on the hotch-potch that is the existing Lowestoft article. I appreciate the page is currently under lockdown, but how about starting up a discussion at Talk:Lowestoft now for the article's wholesale replacement? In other news, have you considered WP:CT? U+003F^? 10:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I've never bothered with WP:CT, mainly, I think, because the articles I've tended to work on have been smallish ones without too many references. Would you suggest it as a more effective way of dealing with references in longer articles or just easier in general? Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree entirely, and would subscribe to the replacement suggestion. Roaringboy 06:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roaringboy (talk • contribs)

Thanks both of you for that. I've made a proposal at the talk page to see if that can get a bit more pov - I'm aware of WP:OWN issues on this article for sure! Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Wilby School

I agree i just thought if it would be notable if I put alot of info. Please could you delete it. Thanks Wilbysuffolk talk 15:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Barrow AFC

Hello Blue Square Thing, I appreciate your time and effort to try and make this a better page, I only have one problem and that you do upload some uneeded things, like Barrow's defeat to FCUoM. The defeat to Guisely is required, due to Barrow not retaing the FA Trophy. I see where your coming from about the season not being the best, but we don't want the page to be too negative, ok. Next Time just think next time you edit, just think whether it is needed or if it is too negative. Barrovian (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll reply to this on the article talk page with some suggestions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Benacre and related pages

Hi. I notice that you moved some of the Benacre articles around back in February. I was wondering if there was any reason you'd object to moving Benacre village back to Benacre, Suffolk - which would fit with just about every other village in Suffolk! I understand why you'd maybe want a separate Benacre dab page (although at the minute the quality of the articles is limited and they could, in theory, all be merged except the Australian one), it's just that the move to Benacre village itself doesn't necessarily follow for me.

I'm quite happy to go about the doing of it all, just wanted to run it by you first in case there was some kind of obvious reason for doing it that I missed. Ta. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Originally, the article was at "Benacre", "Benacre, Suffolk" was a redirect to it, "Benacre village" was unused, and there were assorted other "Benacre" entries.

So I moved "Benacre" to "Benacre village" and turned "Benacre" into a dab page.

I don't remember doing any other moves regarding Benacre. (Did I?)

I'm OK with you moving "Benacre village" to "Benacre, Suffolk" if you wish, but you'll need to ask an admin to do it for you. I couldn't move it to "Benacre, Suffolk" myself, so I chose the unused "village".

(BTW: As far as I'm aware, "Benacre, Suffolk" has always been a redirect to "Benacre", so it's not a case of "moving it back".)

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

This is probable - and thanks for the explanation btw, it's much clearer now! I'm happy with the dab given the Australian page and the handful of other pages about the place. What I'll prolly do is ask for a procedural deletion on Benacre, Suffolk and then move the page across to maintain it's history I think. Unless there's anything obvious you can see that would suggest that's not a good idea? Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

EA derby

I see you reinserted the para about the NCFC win but not the one removed about the ITFC win. Anyway, I have tagged it because it claims to be "important" but provides no verifiable evidence. Just wanted to let you know. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

No worries - it just struck me that a semi-final, even if it was the League Cup, was, by definition, pretty notable. From memory - and I will review it - the other game(s) that were taken out were standard(ish) league games weren't they? I'm *very* conscious of a need for the page to appear balanced fwiw. I'm sure we can find an alternative game to throw in there. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've changed important to notable, which I think is prolly fair, and added the Texaco Cup final which was about the best I could do. My edit summary asks whether anyone knows if there's been a game leading to, say, a team winning the league more or less directly. I can't think of any, although iirc the season City won Division 2 to get promoted to the Premier League (it wasn't called Div 2, but I don't remember what it was called that season...) they first went top of the league in a derby game. But that doesn't really strike me as awfully notable. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Derby

Sensible stuff. I think the graph of relative league positions would be a useful illustration to accompany it. Even better if it could be brought up to date. I'll drop TRM a line on this. --Dweller (talk) 09:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Problem with the graph is that it's more relevant to Pride of Anglia rather than the derby which is a single game thing. I think? Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed it's more relevant - but what it helps with is seeing instantly the preponderance of years in which there would have been a league derby in recent times, which is nice. --Dweller (talk) 10:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

That's true - I wonder if there's a way we could do a results grid or similar? Might be worth looking on similar article pages at some point and comparing maybe? Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

<-Good idea. I'd be surprised if there weren't some well-developed derby articles in different sports and countries --Dweller (talk) 10:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi guys, the Pride of Anglia website (subscription required, albeit a tiny one) has this information. I could reasonably easily knock up a graph of this data, providing, once again, someone tells me how many clubs were in each league every season since 1938!! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It also has every match between the two with (I'm afraid) only Ipswich scorers noted (so not too many of those lately...!) The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I was vaguely looking to see if I could find a City top scorer, but the information isn't easily available. Looking at a few other articles, btw, there doesn't seem to be either a consistent or simple solution to showing stuff like this. I remain unconvinced a graph helps on *this page*, but it might make sense to try to do something vaguely visual. Hmmm... Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

On the graph front, I think it'll help. On the top scorer front, I've dropped an email to the EDP to ask for help. --Dweller (talk) 13:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You guys do know there's already a ncfc v itfc finishing position graph here don't you? It overlooks recent unpleasantness which I think is just fine... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It's lovely. Just four or so years out of date. --Dweller (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks perfectly fine to me. A good start, shall we say? In all seriousness, Perhaps Burwellian has the original data that can be updated? Would be a whole heap easier than starting from scratch... (oh, and Dweller, see that peak which gets right to the very top of the graph? You don't seem to have one of those, right?)... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I noticed the ITFC site wasn't showing this years results either actually... :-)

I've tried to find an alternative list to the one that needs to be paid for (it's not all that helpful to have that as a ref if most people can't verify it) and the ITFC one was about the best I could find. There must be somewhere which has all this information? I'm still dubious on a graph of league position fwiw - I don't know, cumulative wins/wins per decade/some kind of rolling 5 year mean chart might be more targeted at this article? But far too complex no doubt!! Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, it's awkward having the information behind a paywall. Sign of the times. Cumulative wins would work for me, the rolling mean is to complex and probably doesn't make too much more sense than a simple cum. win graph. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Probably easier to produce and keep vaguely up to date as well I imagine. I think it's defendable given the article (i.e. someone will moan that the Binners are on top, but I think it's a logical thing to include and I'd defend it as balanced).

I was wondering about a bit that starts something along the lines of:

One side has scored five goals in a game in the fixture on X occasions ... (list in here?). Six (or more??) goals have been scored in a game on Y occasions (list...).

It's a bit clumsy, but I think there's some mileage maybe in something like that.

I was also wondering if there's mileage in a bit on crowd trouble? Given that the recent game created quite a lot of press and I know there have been issues in the past, including along a fairly organised line iirc. Thoughts? Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, yes etc, all good ideas. Once again, the PoA website has all the individual results, all the attendances (where available) etc, just a shame it's deemed negative to sit behind a cheapo paywall. Crowd trouble should be easily sourced given recent "events". The Rambling Man (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Need to try and find some more historical stuff as well if possible. I may be able to look at some archives through a uni account - I'll see. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Username

How the heck did you end up with the word "blue" in it? --Dweller (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, it's one of those things you do when you need a name for a website (a teaching one in my case) and you don't want to call it "Mr X's Website" :-) It has, obviously, nothing to do with "them"! Comes from an old rag mag joke from 25 years ago I think - I forget now Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It's probably because the Budgies started in blue-and-white. Job done. All good teams play in that livery. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Gunny

Please see my latest post at WT:FOOTY. PS Are you in Norwich today? --Dweller (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Ta - will have a look and a dig about. Not in the City - floor being relaid today :-) Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

henrypeter21

If you would like me to revert, it, i Can, but i only shortened it to make it simple to read so everyone can understand it. that way more people will view the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrypeter21 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

By all means add some of the stuff you had there - it looked quite good some of it and I didn't really have time to edit properly. The problem is that you ended up removing things like the infobox (the box at the top right), the references and the categories - all of which are really core elements of a page like this! I'd suggest editing the text rather than necessarily shortening it - shorter isn't always better (although clearer and, perhaps, simpler may be). OK? Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Register of Historic Buildings

Thanks for your kind comments. Looking at the English Heritage website I notice that they are making positive efforts to correct their register here. I ought to use this facility for the Church of St Mary Castlegate in York. It was listed in 1954 as grade I, presumably under the church name. It was subsequently made redundant and bought by the city council and the register entry was amended to 'Castlegate the Heritage Centre' and then 'York Story', the name of a tourist exhibition which closed at least a decade ago. It has now reverted to its proper name of St Mary Castlegate but it remains as The York Story in the register, though ironically the EH online map has it marked as St Mary's. Not much use, though, if you are trying to look it up. I have now edited the entry in the Wikipedia list of course. And I'm actually churchwarden of a church (St Martin Coney Street) which was listed in bomb damaged condition in 1954 as II*, under a name that is not its legal one (though commonly used at the time) and partially restored 1968. The register makes very little mention of the restoration but the diocesan church buildings officer regards it now as the best post war church in the country. I'm told that there is no doubt that it would be reclassified grade I now that it is over 30 years since the rebuilding took place. But the onus is effectively on me to get that done, for which I should really produce a proper case. When I can get together the right experts I will, and get the name of the church put right at the same time. It makes no practical difference because we are told to treat it as grade I anyway, but in the meantime there is little offical recognition, in effect, that the building is not in heritage terms as it was when a bomb damaged ruin. Presumably the same situation exists with the Old Palace. It's those experiences that have brought home to me that the registers, as well as architectural and tourist guides, are neither infallible nor necessarily current. --AJHingston (talk) 23:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Power

Thanks. Quite clearly, I'm sick of the mindless bullshit. It is extemely refreshing having the participation of someone who can think AND explain their thoughts. Again, thanks. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries, it just seemed a sensible way of doing things. I'm assuming the cn notes for the bars still need to stay - that's not unreasonable given their status I think. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

it just seemed ... - Yes, I agree.

I'm assuming ... - I'm assuming that too. (That's why I left them there when I took away the others.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Lowestoft College Artical

I am informing you that; Lowestoft College Artical has been Reported and is classed as; Original Research wich is a Hoax and Copy Violation. This means Lowestoft College Artical needs to deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.112.127 (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Spexhall

Please come back to the Spexhall page and complete your re-write. It needs the local facilities fleshing out more than the brief summary you replaced the old content with. 212.36.53.202 (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's one for the list - thanks for the reminder! Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

This is your June 2012 reminder to come back to Spexhall :) Tom H Paine (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks :-) Once I have a timetable written, a course done, a new A Level course written and a scheme of work for two new year groups done... I will try and get to it - promise; I could use some non-work related activity soonish I feel. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep it up!

Just wanted to thank you for using informative edit summaries on this article. It's refreshing to see somebody explain themselves over something which most people just blindly click the revert button for. Keep up the great work! Cheers, m.o.p 20:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I don't always manage it! But thanks for protecting it - I was starting to get to the stage where I felt it needed it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

River Waveney: "oxbow"

True, not an oxbow lake, but this was not said. At issue different meanings of "oxbow", possibly between N. American & British. Oxbow lakes are lakes formed by oxbows. The rivers, not the lakes, being what resemble ox harnesses, the lake usage is presumablle derivative on the river. N. American meaning, as in Webster's Collegiate, is "something (as a bend in a river) resembling an oxbow". Also in first things online:

A. AudioEnglish Net: "The noun OXBOW has 3 senses: 1. the land inside an oxbow bend in a river 2. a U-shaped curve in a stream 3. a wooden framework bent in the shape of a U"

B. FreeDictionary: "A sharp, U-shaped bend in a river. The bend is so sharp that only a narrow neck of land is left between the two parts of the river."

Thus a proper name for the Connecticut River, with famous painting by Cole: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oxbow_(Connecticut_River)

Presumably also in Henry Fonda film about Nevada, "Ox-bow Incident" (1943), based on 1940 novel.

Therefore, I reinstate "oxbow" as "oxbow meander", the point being that "loop" is not sufficiently descriptive of the River at Bungay, or of the situation of Bungay there.

On another matter

I note that the Lake Fenland description of the channels of the Ouse & Waveney in this article seems to require reference support, which is lacking. Might this be flagged? I don't know how to do this. Thank you.

Alethe (talk) 09:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey! I wouldn't tend to call that an oxbow at all then! The technical term is probably an incised meander I think (it's a couple of years since I, err, taught geography...). You should note as well that oxbow links to something about stuff that went on oxs! I don't know whether you want to go with incised meander of not - that's cool, but probably link it to meander?

I'll take a look at the Lake Fenland bit at some point - if you watch my edit (assuming I do it) then that should show you the syntax to do that sort of thing!

Have fun now :-) Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Bon Introduction: 1. I'm a university professor, newly settled in River Waveney area, which I slowly begin to investigate. I've written, developed, edited, illus. lots of Wiki articles, incl. core of unruly "School of Athens", "Hebden, Yorkshire" & all of "Jan Kwapiński". 2. I've an amateur interest in bridges (as in "Blackfriars Street Bridge", all my work). 1&2: hence when saw topological border for River Waveney article, set 'project' of photographing, through seasons, interesting crossings of River from Redgrave to sea, & so opened Gallery. That sh'd take a while. (Btw, current header pic. is crooked.) Re article, expect it'll develop.

Agree this includes "Course" sec., where I suggest more needs saying about River itself, not just things along it--thus introducing Defoe & talking about its two main identities. I think this might be developed into a sec. on River Waveney Valley, which holds many interests, incl. Roman Rd, maybe Villa Faustini @ Scole, Hoxne paleolithic site (within dogleg extending from Lopham to Ellingham in Singer's book on't & in gov't planning doc. on "W. Tributary Farmland" http://www.south-norfolk.gov.uk/planning/media/B4_Waveney_Tributary.pdf ).

Fenland thesis re valley needs source support for sure. Will link "oxbow" to "meander". It'll be fun to cooperate on this, giving the River more attn than it has gotten.Alethe (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Good stuff - there are a bunch of village articles that could use expanding and sourcing up as well btw :-) I've made a reasonable start on some of the ones to the south of Beccles, but in general villages tend to be left as stubs. Might be worth a look at some point. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Inherent notability for elementary schools which have been "Blue Ribbon Schools"

I am contacting you because you participated in either the AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kennedy Middle School (Cupertino, California) which resulted in a redirect or the deletion review Wikipedia:Deletion review#Kennedy Middle School (Cupertino, California) which resulted in restoration of the article because it was once a "Blue Ribbon School". I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)#US elementary schools: Inherent notability: for "Blue Ribbon Schools" as to whether the 5200 schools which have been found awarded the "Blue Ribbon" seal of approval get inherent notability, or if they each have to satisfy WP:ORG via significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Your input is welcome. Thanks! Edison (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Contrib made and I shall watch it as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In List of Old Westcliffians, you recently added links to the disambiguation pages SAS and Peter Dawson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Hi. I'm just pointing out that having the same or a similar name is not a criterion for deletion. For such cases, Wikipedia has WP:Disambiguation pages and/or WP:Hatnotes that are for this purpose. This clears up any search engine confusion. Happy editing! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

My gut feeling is that for a primary school where we're redirecting an article to a location, that a common name (particularly in the case of St John's say) would be better deleted rather than redirected. Wiki pages usually end up very high up the top of search engine lists, and in this case (and I generally apply this only to primary schools btw) such links are unhelpful to users. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, with all due respect, notability (or lack of it) is determined by policy, guidelines, and precedent, not by gut feeling. If you're not sure how disambiguation works here, this will most certainly give you a clue, and if you've followed the links above, you'll now also want to read WP:ATA to be doubly sure. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Fine, although it's an argument I've both seen used before and have used myself before. For the record I'm completely unconvinced that a disamb page for "St John's Primary School" is ever going to be a good, *practical*, idea, but if you insist on one then that's fine by me - just so long as someone can manage to keep it moderately well edited it'll all be fine. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

As an addition, the new AfD case of Denbigh Community Primary is interesting to consider in this regard. You want to redirect to Wallsend with a hat note saying you came from DCPS? Or to Denbigh? Whuch ine? How do we decide? In this case I'd argue strongly that deleting is the best option as it won't confuse users - I really don't see how you'd get around this with a disamb or a hatnote. Seriously - how, exactly, do you intend to resolve in cases such as this?

I have no problem with redirects when the school name is clearly pretty unique. It's when there's doubt over where it'll go that I have the problem really. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I should also query this wrt WP:R#DELETE point #1 (without prejudice - maybe you'll see something in this that I don't just now). It also strikes me that point #10 might apply there as well fwiw. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a way forward is to accept that primary schools are equally as notable as secondary ones, with many having a longer history and inherant notability than certain high schools that barely manage a stub entry? What comes over as Wikipedia predudice against including primary education goes against the whole reason Wikipedia was created - and saying that a redirect page is not acceptable is, imo, beyond the point of reason. The name of the school should, if not being allowed to stand as an article in it's own right, lead to a section in the page on the community served by said school. Obviously only an issue where such detail has been added. DiverScout (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe that is a way forward, but it's not one that is current policy.

Now, on redirects: I'm not saying in any way that a redirect is not acceptable. What I argued is that a common school name should not redirect to just one locality. So, for example, there are, I imagine, a whole pile of St Mary's Primary Schools. Which location do we redirect to? In my view we don't - we might go to a dab page, but to redirect that title to the one in, say, Place X and ignore Places A - W is Very Silly imo. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

GISSV

Sorry, only just seen your reply to my message. I will back off from the GISSV article while you do your stuff. Thanks for taking a look at it. - Sitush (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks pretty reasonable, given the general consensus, to me. Any help with finding something in some localish media to support the article would be a help - I'll try the SF Examiner and also the German embassy in Washington - and any consulate they may have on the West Coast. Without sourcing it's marginal to my view, but not unreasonable given the general consensus that secondary schools are notable - put it another way, I'd bet a fiver it'd survive and AfD :-) Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Tbh, pretty much any secondary school will survive AfD. And I will admit to not being fond of that. I'll dig for some sources but, wow, your lateral thinking regarding the German embassy blows me away - that is genius, regardless of whether it gets a result or not. - Sitush (talk) 01:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I've found very little other than a couple of lists - nothing that I would consider a "proper" secondary source (fwiw, I would tend to agree that too many secondary schools survive AfD - I'd prefer to see an application of WP:ORG on this sort of thing). I was considering e-mailing the school and seeing if they have obvious newspaper clippings they could add as sources. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If it is like my school was, they only clippings they would show are those that present it in a good light ... and they would be press releases. Eg: my school somehow managed to get me a big spread in a local newspaper, complete with quotes from me etc, without my prior knowledge and despite the fact that I was working 200 miles away at the time - q state school getting a profoundly deaf kid (I typed "dead" initially - whoops!) through to Cambridge made them look good, you see. The story of how a kid hit a teacher over the head with a black pudding at assembly (per The Goodies' "ecky-thump" routine of that time) made the UK nationals but the school clammed up. - Sitush (talk) 09:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Article on Torben Larsen

You added an ref improve tag to the article on Torben Larsen. I'm not sure I can find more good citations, i've mostly used an article from a newspaper called Nordjyske. The article started as a fun idea, but I would really like to improve the article so it can stay online. Thank you for the help.

Preben / Prebbish — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prebbish (talk • contribs) 10:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Nordjyske is an OK starting point. I *think* his involvement on Statens Teknisk-videnskabelige Forskningsråd (did I translate that right on the article btw?) is probably enough to meet one of the Notability criteria for academics - can you find anything that would suggest that this is important enough a body? Any similar involvement or chairing of academic conferences and so on would be helpful - my Danish really isn't good enough and I don't have access to the necessary academic references etc... in Danish universities. Anything you can add along these lines would be great - it's obviously been accepted as a notable enough article by someone with the right sorts of privileges to make those sorts of decisions, so let's go with it! Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah your translation look fine. I know he has also been head of the institute at some time, I can probably find out precisely when and add it to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prebbish (talk • contribs) 11:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Excellent! Don't forget to sign your comments with 4 ~ symbols btw - a bot will do it for you if you forget, but it's easier to remember! Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Blue Square Thing. You have new messages at Bleaney's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	It's so refreshing to see users discuss disagreements calmly, as you did with me at Michael Gove. I feel that, because of your civility and good temperament, we're in a position to further improve the article, which is great. I truly appreciate it. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Fernando Llorente

Hi there BST, AL from Portugal here,

regarding your comments in this player's edit history, it seems so, we have to be extra vigilant because this article is quite targeted, they can't hear a rumour they come straight to his page and ruin everybody's work.

Unfortunately, the silly kids returning to school on 03/09 won't stop anything, they still have breaks and weekends :( Attentively, happy week (PS article on my watchlist) --AL (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Ha - yes, indeed. I've added to your edits to try to rationalise some bits and add in the early life section which is probably justified. I think there's still more to do in the playing career bit to summarise a bit more (rather than the "and then in this season..." mode. Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Please, leave Pamplona out of the intro, it goes in body of article. Regarding the dashes, you made a tiny mistake also, the dashes more often used are the big "-", not the "–" ones. Plus, we don't need to refer to his Basque national team appearances in the intro, that's a very very very minor part of his international career (not even FIFA-recognized), intro is just for his "exploits" with his COUNTRY.

Also, in late club career, why remove the results in matches (the stuff in brackets)? It showcases his importance in the given game. Please let's reach a compromise.

Attentively - --AL (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Updates to original message: i don't think the article is bad because of the word "season" being repeated, if you notice many articles on English footballers (the majority) even have sub-sections of seasons in the players' club career ("2008-09 season", "2009-10 season", etc, etc), utterly wrong in my book but i don't make the rules here.

In Llorente's case, i tried to avoid just that kind of repetition you refer to above by writing sometimes "in 2006-07", or "throughout the 2007-08 campaign", or "the 2009-10 season", etc, etc. But that info is needed because we have (the reader has) to know what season are we talking about when we write he scored/netted 19 goals, or 25 official goals or whatever.

Cheers again - --AL (talk) 14:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I was referring more to the way in which football articles tend to end up not summarising the content effectively because they end up being updated far too regularly. It's not the word season itself - it's the stylistic nature of articles. I would entirely disagree with regard to the bracketed scores - essentially they're largely irrelevant when discussing the subject of the article, particularly for those events. The other edits were MOS related - MOS and the project related suggested structure would very strongly support putting his birthplace in the lead - the lead certainly needs expanding anyway. But I'm out the country for a fortnight now anyway... Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

To add, there are a couple of places where I think the written English might need improving as well - for example, you don't "come from the bench" you "come off of the bench", you don't score "as much" you score "as many" etc... But I don't have time to go through and pick out these just now I'm afraid - I might remember at the end of the month. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• I am sorry for reverting your grammar corrections, have reinstated them. Another item, the intro: i think for now it's well documented, because he 1 - has not played for more than one club in his career, winning ZERO titles; 2 - his Spanish national team career is also very insignificant thus far.

Per your suggestions, i have also removed the match scores in which he was not crucial. Sorry for any incovenience, happy weekend - --AL (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• I also see you have clashed with User:Derekgrey, i have tried to reach him on several ocassions regarding this article, to no avail, zero feedback. --AL (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I only saw the most recent edit yet - I'm working through a fortnight's worth of vandalism to school article edits mainly :-) I'll get too this one later and see what the score is. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Stats: in regard to Athletic Bilbao players, even though BDFUTBOL.com is a good source for Spanish footballers, you should go with the Athletic official page. Nice work, i'll have a look now. --AL (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Replaced your ref about the SCHALKE 04 game because mine leads directly to the game between the clubs, not to his UEFA.com profile. Speculation will be dealt with accordingly, don't worry.

Great work indeed, happy week - --AL (talk) 17:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• I only altered it from "Bilbao" to "club" to avoid repetition of words, but it's OK if you want to revert me there. Nice teamwork hey? --AL (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• As you ask in your last summary: NO THEY CAN'T, because they are nothing but vandals! That or kids seeking their 15 seconds of wiki-fame...Happy week from Portugal --AL (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

File:David Laws.jpg

You've requested deletion of File:David Laws.jpg per G3. It looks to me like it is subject to Crown Copyright. What do you think I am missing?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Good question - I was unsure what to tag it with and whether it was a speedy candidate or not. I've not really been involved in images that much in the past.

Images from the DfE site (and some other UK government departments) seem to not be able to be used without specific permission. The crown copyright link from the image page suggests that content may be used - other than images. The first subsection on the permission page states very clearly "Any visual media that is the property of the Department may be reproduced in certain instances, but not without the prior approval of the Department." As far as I can see no approval has been granted - there are several other images uploaded by the same user which fall under the same category. I tagged this one as a speedy to try to work out if this was the sort of situation and license issue where a speedy would apply or not. G3 looked like it was the most likely to apply - but if you can help me out with the way to take this further then I'd appreciate it.

It's worth noting that the user who uploaded the image is banned on wikimedia for uploading similar images, which have been deleted. They then seem to have worked on uploading the same images here instead to subvert the block. They are also an almost certain sock - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marquis de la Eirron - of a user who's done exactly the same sort of thing previously. Not that that influences whether or not it's a speedy per se.

Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'm fairly involved in copyright issues, but this is my first foray into Crown Copyright.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Fernando Llorente

Hi there BSQ, AL here,

as you see, the summer transfer window has closed, the rubbish continues (now he'll play for Liverpool!). Wish i had your patience and tolerance for vandals, i have not. Have a nice week, from Portugal - --AL (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh my - keep on reverting I guess :-) Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)