User talk:DeLarge/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Do you know the name of the first student film to be included in the registry before Peege? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(originally posted at User talk:MacGyverMagic) To quote the Reverend Lovejoy, "short answer 'yes' with an 'if', long answer 'no' with a 'but'".

I know that Peege is alleged to be the second student film selected to the NFR. I also know that the previous year, student film A Time Out of War was selected. Unfortunately, I can't find anyone coming right out and saying that ATOOW was the first, and it wasn't for a lack of looking. It was also the first to win an Oscar when it was released in '54, and everyone seems too busy repeating that fact to mention any NFR precedent. It's one of those situations where, with no explicit evidence to the contrary, I just assumed good faith on the part of the press release authors, especially since it wasn't the most bombastic brag I'd ever heard.

If there's a problem I can try and come up with something else. I tried last night before I submitted the current hook, but it was getting late, and the 200-character limit was proving too constricting. --DeLarge (talk) 12:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't ask because I thought there was a problem. I was just wondering what the first was since the article on the registry wasn't very clear. Perhaps you could link to it in the Peege article. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(responded at User talk:MacGyverMagic as below) Update: Darn it. You got me all paranoid and I started digging deeper; I discovered Killer of Sheep is a student film and was selected in 1990. Pffft, that'll teach me to be so trusting. I'll strike out the hook at T:TDYK and see if I can cobble something else together. --DeLarge (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess my question was good for something. It's better to find mistakes now rather than later. I had a hook that somehow managed to survive even though the date in it was off by 10 years :( Luckily someone fixed it for me :). Let me know if you cobble something else together and I'll do the hook confirming. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• See User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Repairing moves of many templates. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

On January 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Peege, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

...for vandalism to the Ten O'Clock classics article, as you have protected it in the past. Thanks--96.224.9.216 (talk) 05:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been away for WP for a few days, though I would have spotted in on my return if it hadn't already been reverted. Note that I'm not an admin, so cannot protect the page myself; for that you should make a request at the BLP noticeboard. However, the imminent activation of "flagged revisions" should make this concern moot. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

can you help me make the request on that noticeboard? maybe long-term protection is appropriate? ... not sure that i understand how the flagged revisions will impact this? --96.224.15.157 (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

No need, by the looks of things. I don't think there wasn't sufficient vandalism at the time to warrant it, but the subsequent escalation in edit-warring has seen the page semi-protected anyhoo. As for flagged revisions, I was under the impression it was going to be site-wide as per the German Wikipedia, but it looks like I'm mistaken. I guess if it's only implemented for biographies then it won't affect this article for now. --DeLarge (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

(originally posted at User talk:PrinceGloria) I have a fairly straightforward (but very long-winded) solution to this problem, although it'll most likely require a bit of consensus building at the WP:CARS talk page. I've noticed you've not made edits in the last week or so; are you still available? If you'd like to discuss it off-wiki I can be reached by e-mail. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 09:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear DeLarge,

Thank you for your interest and message. I indeed have very little time for Wikipedia those days, and frankly speaking, very little time for anything. I very much appreciate your contacting me about the issue though.

Is there anything about the issue or your solution / stance on that that would not merit inclusion in Wikipedia talk pages? If there is, please let me know via talk page that you'd like me to contact you via email (my email account I used to register @ Wikipedia is now inactive).

Please be informed that I see the problem as fairly simple - the categories were deleted rather without merit, and only because the nominators, the few voters and the closing admin were not really familiar with this area of knowledge were they deleted. I absolutely can't see why they shouldn't be absolutely undeleted other than I do not have the time to properly take care of the process now. Is there anything about the issue that I've missed?

Kind regards,

PrinceGloria (talk) 04:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(originally posted at User talk:PrinceGloria) Sorry for the delay in replying. No, nothing needs discussed off-wiki, just wasn't sure if it was easier to communicate by e-mail.

I agree the categories should be restored. Looking through the admin's bot contribution log for the time, there doesn't seem to have been many articles which included the category; I'm wondering if the sparseness of the category's contents was a motivation in nominating it? Compare Category:Mid-size cars; even cars which should not be so categorized have been included (Austin Maestro is the most risible). It might be better, when recreating it, to make sure that at the very least, every car listed at the EuroNCAP source page is used.

There is a problem is with the tree of car class categories. For example, Category:Executive cars is bizarrely a sub-category of Category:Mid-size cars and Category:Luxury vehicles, while as far as I can see there is no differentiation between American and Australian mid-size cars, even though two different authorities will have classified them and, their respective definitions will most likely be slightly different.

• Category:Car classifications
  • North American car classifications (with a link to the EPA and/or the relevant car class article)
    • Mid-size cars, Compact cars, etc
  • Category:European car classifications (with a link to EuroNCAP)
    • Small family cars, Large family cars, etc
  • Category:Australian car classifications (with a reference to the FCAI)
    • Whatever categories there are (User:OSX would be invaluable here)
  • Category:Japanese car classifications (with a link to JAMA)
    • Kei cars, etc

The biggest issue with this construction, which seems the most correct to me, would be the possibility of overlap between category names. If American and Australian mid-size cars are not defined in exactly the same way, then the current Category:Mid-size cars will need to be split/renamed. It would at least be a step away from the systemic American bias which constantly afflicts WP:CARS.

However, to return full circle to the original point, I agree the category should not have been deleted, and commented so at the admin's talk page. Unfortunately, passing comments by other editors at the time seem against the idea, although mostly these comments seem to be from people who don't get that these are official names and not merely descriptions. I think the above strategy is the best one to avoid summary re-deletion in future. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear DeLarge,

This indeed is the best solution. I am afraid I cannot devote too much time to Wiki, but I will gladly help you with that in whatever capacity you'd find it appropriate. I believe we need to set up the category system as above, and then file a deletion review for the missing category (one of the categories deleted was misspelt, so we do not technically have to undelete it).

Please let me know of the plan. Over the weekend, I guess I could do some Wiki stuff.

Looking forward to,

PrinceGloria (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I just saw you finish up the GA review; thank you for all of your help! It's always good to have another pair of eyes looking over things, and you definitely suggested a lot of good changes. I hope you enjoyed reading it. Happy editing, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Enjoyed it a lot. I find it amusing when I see that something like this—the "the biggest hit in Chinese history" and the unofficial anthem of Tiananmen Square—didn't exist on WP until a month ago, but yet we're supposed to believe that article creation is a thing of the past, and all that's left is just maintenance now. Good job filling in another little gap in our coverage! --DeLarge (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Haha, yeah, I remember a few years ago when people were talking about how Wikipedia was plateauing and there were no more articles to create...but I keep running across stuff like this! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, DeLarge, I just wanted to say thanks for helping out and giving a second opinion on And Then There Were None. You noticed a lot of stuff that I missed (but will look for in future). I'll take your suggestion to wait a few more days and see what changes are made; otherwise, I'm afraid it's a fail. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No probs; I know the feeling. I don't have a lot of WP reviewing experience myself, and the first time I assess an article which isn't up to scratch, I'll probably also look for a second editor to concur before actually voting the page down.

The feedback I've gotten from editors has been positive, regardless of the decision; I think as long as reviewers do as you've done, offering constructive criticism to improve things, the nominators are OK with whatever decision you make. --DeLarge (talk) 10:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi DeLarge, if you have time I'd like to ask you a favor. One of my articles is at FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Street newspaper) but has not really gotten any comments in a long time, and I'm worried it might get removed without having generated much constructive input for me. Anyway, since you did the GA review for one of my other articles, Nothing To My Name, I was wondering if you could take a quick look and offer comments/criticism if you have any—I'm asking you just because I wanted to get input from some people who I know are talented editors in good standing but whom I'm not "friends" with, so it doesn't come off as canvassing.

Anyway, if you're too busy or if this is not a topic that interests you, I understand; I figured I'd just give it a shot! Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

What are "under -licence" vehicles. Come to south and SE Asian countries and see how popular and prevalent theses jeeps are. There are whole cultures and "collectionism" built around theses. I thought it is appropriate to include such a vehicle in Wikipedia. Your constructive criticism and contributions are welcome but not your uninformed deletions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanka007 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Under licence vehicles are those which are assembled/sold by a third party under an agreement with the original manufacturer. For parallels, see Mitsubishi Henry J, which is also a redirect rater than a standalone article. Similar approaches are used for the Mitsubishi Precis, which was merely a rebadged Hyundai, or the Dodge Stealth, which Mitsubishi built for Dodge. However, I'll post at WP:CARS for wider feedback to prevent further edit-warring.

And while we're on the subject about being misinformed, can you please stop uploading images to Wikipedia with false claims about their copyright status? I've tagged one Jeep image for deletion, and had to edit the photo of the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka as well. Thanks... --DeLarge (talk) 11:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

re the change to this page, I realise that you have stetted the changes (Garry Connelly to Garry Connolly) made by me, as this is what appears elsewhere on the web, but I believe this to be incorrect. Note that Garry Connolly appears in one instance and Garry Connelly in a four races. I saw this yesterday, and it did not seem correct that there would be two co-drivers so similarly named (and for both of them to sit with Kenjiro Shinozuka in consecutive seasons) and with a bit of google checking discerned that "Garry Connolly" was the correct ref. See the following links:

http://sorra.offroadracing.com.au/history.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/1639317.stm

http://www.bmsc.com.au/forums/australian-rallying-discussion/3655-london-2-sydney-cams.html

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.131.14.2 (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi there,

It's actually very confusing. My original info when first writing the article was from Rallybase.nl, which, while reliable, is not infallible, so I didn't revert you without a thorough check. After a good bit of digging, I'm now a bit more confident that the "-elly" spelling is correct.

I noticed the BBC article in my research, and they're typically a good source. Unfortunately, in this case they're inconsistent—they also use the "Connelly" spelling in this article, although they mis-spelled his first name. On a related note, the BBC also has trouble with rugby league player Gary Connolly, whose name is spelled two different ways in this article and this one.

Can't say about the offroadracing.com.au page; while it's "just a website", the author seems knowledgeable. However, it's a very passing mention of the man. The bmsc.com.au link is just a forum post, and can't be given any credence either way.

It did occur to me that there might actually be two different men with very similar names, and this thought seemed supported by two links, one to AMSAG (owners of the "Southern Cross Rally" name), and one to the comprehensive London-Sydney Marathon site, which has a history of Andrew Cowan's successes. Both of these list "G. Connelly" partnering Joginder Singh in '71/73/74, while in '75/76/77, Kenjiro Shinozuka was partnered by "G. Connolly".

Nevertheless, that seemed very unlikely, and credence for this being a typo comes from a very important link, to this article. It mentions "It was interesting to note Garry Connelly navigating for Shinozuka in the factory Lancer. Garry, where was your Helmet mate? Oh well, it was 1976!" That seems to debunk the "two men" theory. Aside from the specific spelling, the tone of the article is very informal, and does seem written by someone on a first-name basis with the ARCom chairman (the author, Dallas Dogger, was a media manager for ARCom at some time in the past).

If we then assume that there is only one guy, and that he's the person who became chairman of ARCom and later the Australian FIA delegate, then "Garry Connelly" is the favoured spelling: FIA's bio of Connelly; FIA.com searches only bring up "Connelly"; Rally Australia's site spells it "Connelly"; News articles which mention Garry Connelly.

Hope all this helps clarify things. I'm now going to jump into the article and correct the other mis-spellings of Connelly, which I just noticed a moment ago. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

(originally posted at User talk:134.36.15.117) Hi. Could you please provide a source before changing the value of Andy Webster's transfer? The incumbent citation, plus the three more I have just added, all say £75,000. I have reverted your changes so that our article matches the existing, verifiable, published reports. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I can confirm that the transfer fee for Wesbter from Hearts to Arbroath eventually totalled £67,500.00 (there was an intial fee and then additional payments through clauses). I can confirm this as Secretary of Arbroath FC (Gary J Callon). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.15.117 (talk) 11:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The fee paid out by the purchaser to all parties is the most commonly reported figure, not merely that received by the selling club. If Arbroath received £67.5k, I would assume the fees/commissions/etc paid to others would easily be £7500 or so, explaining the disparity. Wikipedia is obliged to cite the information which can be verified by published sources, hence why the most common £75k figure is quoted. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I should perhaps point out that I am the Secretary of Arbroath FC that is listing the transfer fee as £67,500. If you wish to email me go to the official Arbroath FC website and email the Club Secretary and I will reply and can confirm this. The media got a lot of information wrong in the Webster case regarding amounts and the dispute we had with Hearts. The £75,000 they quoted was wrong and the £67,500 was the final amount that had come in over a few years with clauses for 'playing so many games for Hearts'. 'Scotland Under 21 cap', full Scotland cap. You will also note that the 17.5% of the £150,000 fee that Arbroath received from Hearts was based on 17.5% of £150,000 - £67,500 = £82,500, i.e. £14,437.50. I should also point out that I did nearly all of the negotiations in recouping the fee from Hearts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.170.95 (talk) 11:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfotunately, we're bound by the policy of verifiability, where "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." In other words, Wikipedia is a tertiary source, so we report on what other sources have previously published. Most contemporary news reports quoted the £75k figure, which can therefore be easily verified by referencing media archives. It is not practicable to expect our readers to have to contact the Arbroath F.C. to confirm the £67.5k figure.

To give a parallel, if you feel that the media have misreported the figure which you see when you do a search of Google News for stories of the transfer, you would not contact Google themselves to alter the figures; they are merely a news aggregator. You would contact the source publishers to correct them instead.

Given the possible re-assessment of this ruling's significance (in light of the recent CAS decision regarding Matuzalem's move from Shakhtar Donetsk to Real Zaragoza), you might wish to make contact the news outlets who've been publishing the £75k figure; I think the Evening Times, Daily Record/Sunday Mail, The Guardian, and the BBC (among others) have all used this number. Once they start to quote your £67,500, we can follow suit ourselves. Until then, I've edited the article to add in "reported" in the meantime, which is the best I can do until more secondary sources publish your figure. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

PS I haven't doubted who you are, since your original edits from November '08 and April '09 were from an IP which matches the Arbroath F.C. secretary's place of employment. (Big Brother is watching, I'm afraid.) Your veracity was never in question.

Hi,

Thanks for that. I appreciate where you are coming from and I think your rewording to include 'reported' is I agree a solution. I think in all honesty that someone from the Club gave the wrong figure to the media at some point and they picked up on that and it carried forward in latter media reports. The final figure that Arbroath FC received was £67.5k (+ £14,437.50 for his move to Wigan) but the initial had only been 35k and there were additional add ons for first 1st team appearance, Scotland Under 21 cap, full cap etc. I think someone from the media at some point asked the question of how much Arbroath had received to date and the reply from the person at the Club was probably something like 'it'll be about 75k', i.e off the top of their head without adding everything up. This had likely been before any intended move from Hearts. I didn't mean to cause any offence and I appreciate the good report that you have written. For the record, we still occasionally see Andy at Gayfield and he comes to see a match from time to time. His parents still live in Arbroath. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.172.17 (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)