User talk:Chillysnow

Welcome!

Hello, Chillysnow, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! *~Daniel~* 02:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good job

Good job on spotting that linkspam. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 15:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Eagle! Chillysnow 17:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Birmingham radio

I reinstated the Wolverhampton stations and moved it to Template: West Midlands radio. I think this is important because there is a lot of overlap of stations between the two areas which is clearly an important market in radio, and is better than having two seperate templates which would be almost identical bar 2 stations (Galaxy/BRMB vs Beacon/The Wolf). -Lee Stanley (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SHIFT BUTTON

No, the shift button was not stuck. I choose to do that, so the freaking weenies who delete updates, with VALID SOURCES mind you, can see how frustrating it is, to not have an update for two months. With all the RELIABLE SOURCES, and PHOTOS out there, you would think we could, at the very least, get a weekly update, if not a daily one.--Subman758 (talk) 04:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Palace Transmitter

Hi Chilly. I note that in 2006 you moved Crystal Palace Transmitter to Crystal Palace transmitting station, and I understand the reasons why you did this. However, it is out of sync with what it is called, and what people would be looking for. The common and most easily recognised name is the "Crystal Palace transmitter". My proposal is that we move the article name to Crystal Palace transmitter, and then to make a mention within the article that the "Crystal Palace transmitter" while being a Transmitter can also be called a "transmitting station". This move would be in accord with Wikipedia:Name#Use_the_most_easily_recognized_name, which gives a fuller explanation of the policy regarding using common names. I am aware that there are a number of other articles which have also been named "Foo transmitter station" rather than "Foo transmitter" - I have done a random check and noted that Heathfield transmitter gets more Ghits than Heathfield transmitting station, as does [Black Mountain transmitter over Black Mountain transmitting station. I also note on List of transmission sites that other articles on transmitters, such as Gaisberg Transmitter and Topolna transmitter use "transmitter" rather than "transmitter station". So I propose moving all "Foo transmitter station" articles to "Foo transmitter" articles would would ensure a consistency across Wikipedia, which aids navigation and reader experience. I am aware I may have missed something important, so I'll pause for your response before carrying out the moves. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 09:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me Chilly. And thanks for the link - however, I think the point is not that the phrase transmitting station is never used, but that transmitter is used more often. And for every example that I have noted of transmitting station being used I have found rather more examples of transmitter. I noted the amount of books which use the phrase "Crystal Palace transmitter" - [1]. And I also noted that on the Google box on my browser which offers suggestions for words I type, when putting in "crystal palace t" it offers 10 suggestions, including crystal palace transmitter, but not crystal palace transmitting station - even when I type "crystal palace transmitting".

It is usually best to follow policy as there are reasons why policy was drawn up. The wording of the naming policy is very apt here, so I quote it in full: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. This is justified by the following principle: The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists. Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject."

As the Crystal Palace transmitter belongs to the BBC, it seems they would be the most reliable source. [2], [3], [4], [5], etc. I found no BBC sources (other than a learning English blog) in which "Crystal Palace transmitting station" is used.

As transmitter is used more often than transmitting station, as most books on the subject use transmitter, as the most authoritative source uses transmitter, as Google defaults to transmitter, and we want the articles to be easily found by the most readers, then it seems the best action would be to move the articles to transmitter.

I did take a look at the discussion you mention. [[6]]. I see no clear consensus there. Indeed, I see this comment: "I don`t really consider all of this to be a big deal but I`m in the business myself (site www.aerialsandtv.com) and I have only ever once seen transmitters referred to as "transmitting stations". Even the BBC website (on its reception advice page) refers to them as transmitters. Furthermore we have a stats package on our site (and can see what search terms are requested) and I can`t remember ever seeing anyone request "XXXXXXX transmitting station".I would have thought this last point is the most relevant." by User:JustinSmith.

I will proceed with the moves as suggested as the evidence is compelling. If you still feel strongly that there is a special case here for these articles going against reliable sources and Wiki policy, you could raise the issue on Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 00:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big Ben

It is frequently the case that an administrator who closes a WP:RM is attacked by some of those who take part in the debate. In this case I see no point in replying on the talk page to the points raised, as I covered them when I closed the debate, but you might like to read the comment I left at User talk:Born2cycle#Big Ben move despite lack of consensus and also consider that the name of this article was for a long time "Big Ben". AFAICT it was move from that name some time in August 2006 first to St. Stephen's Tower and later to the "Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster". But according to the history comment on 4 October 2006 there had been a cut and past move to "Big Ben" on the 29th August. The mess was fixed by the administrator Kusma after {{db-histmerge}} template with the argument "Big Ben" by user user:Solipsist. But it is very confusing because the page has a merged history of several article so my reading of it may be wrong. What is not in doubt is that on the current talk page contains an on going argument about this and if your logic had been followed, the page would have moved to Big Ben in July 2007. If so on this latest move as there was no consensus to move the article would have remained at Big Ben. --PBS (talk) 09:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument just doesn't hold water. How long the article was called Big Ben in the past is of course entirely irrelevant. And your assertion that if my logic had been followed then the article would have been moved in Jul 2007 is entirely false. In fact, there was no clear consensus there either, as it plainly says in the summing up on that page. I quote: Although there is a majority of opinion in favour of the move, it is not overwhelming, and much of the support was admittedly reluctant. Many contributors are adamant that the tern "Big Ben" should only be used for the bell itself. It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. User:Stemonitis. So we are back to the position that you have moved the page with no clear consensus, which is a flagrant abuse of admin power. You seem to be deliberately ignoring valid concerns so I see no alternative but to take this to dispute resolution. Chillysnow (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Cabal case Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-11-07_Big_Ben has been closed per PBS' request. Mononomic (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You would have a legitimate objection to PBS's closing the second RM, especially if there were clear consensus for Westminster. But moving it yourself, after an RM, however flawed, is to answer one wrong with another; instead, demonstrate the wider consensus spoken of in WP:CONSENSUS. That will put you in a much stronger position. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Mark Wright (politician)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Mark Wright (politician), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Wright (politician). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Bang Radio for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bang Radio is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bang Radio until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –Davey2010^Talk 13:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]