User talk:Murry1975/Archive1
The Ireland
[edit]Good work replacing Republic of Ireland with Ireland, where appropriate. Could you please remember to remove the "the" as well? Thanks Grafen (talk) 12:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- D'oh , thanks and sorry about that . I must read the peview properly in future .Thanks. Murry1975 (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I am reverting both you edit to Football (word). There is a reason for the use of Republic there to distinguish North from South. This is necessary for soccer and it is distorting to use Ireland in this context. If this were about a sport that has one unified governing body for all of island of Ireland such as the Irish Rugby Union, then of course Ireland would be appropriate. Having made these changes and had them reverted, if you still wish to implement them then build a consensus for the change on the talk page of the article (WP:BRD). -- PBS (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- While I appreciate that it was a mistake I made , how about using the correct pipelink then ? Also as per WP:IMOS ? The article was pipelinked toIreland and the media article doesnt lead to an article about media only in the republic it leads to an overall Irish media article . So why did you not change the Pipelinks? The reader (me in this case) was being pipelinked wrong - and I didnt spot my mistake . The phrase irish media is the correct one .Murry1975 (talk) 14:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with the first one, but have changed it to RoI. Although the link is to the Irish media article, the sources and the sentence are about media in the Republic excluding NI.If you wish to discuss this further, it is better to do it on the talk page of the article so that others know about the conversation, and can add their views to it if they so wish. I have it on my watch list so I will see any comments you add. -- PBS (talk) 12:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- I find your edits a POV .Have stated such on discussion page .Refusing to describe something from Ireland as Irish , disgusting .Murry1975 (talk) 12:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
MOSFLAG
[edit]There is nothing in the guideline which prohibits flags in individual infoboxes. It is not my job to provide a part of the guideline which allows something, it is your job to highlight that part of the guideline which prohibits the thing which you are removing. Otherwise you are falsely citing a guideline to back up your edit. During a long discussion here, it was admitted that there is no consensus to add a clause to the guideline prohibiting these flags. You can re-add the flags to the articles you have edited today, or I can. Also, if somebody reverts one of your edits, per WP:BRD, it's best to discuss the matter rather than just keep reverting and starting an edit war. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- I highlighted it while you ignored it . Also another editor made the same edit , which you undone . I really cant see how MOS:FLAG states "Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. Flag icons are visually distracting in infoboxes and lead to unnecessary disputes when over-used. Examples of acceptable exceptions would be military battle infoboxes templates and infoboxes that include international competitions, such as FIFA World Cup or the Olympic Games." an yet it is seen fit to go against this . I understand in a competition as A1 or F1 , but in sportspersons infoboxes "As with other biographical articles, flags are discouraged in sportspeople's individual infoboxes even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many and should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text." Murry1975 (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- The word used there is "discouraged", not "prohibited". It says "examples of acceptable exceptions are..." without listing all exceptions. Examples of infoboxes in which flags are prohibited are given, and these do not include the racing driver infobox. The guideline is obviously ambiguous, but there was no consensus to change the wording of the guideline to prohibit these flags. The "distraction" element is bogus, and has not at any stage, by anyone, been verified. Identical flags used elsewhere in infoboxes are apparently not distracting, rendering that element of the guideline unworkable. I understand that the discussion is long, but you can see that no decision was made to change anything, and no real progress was made. Incidentally, I have contributed to many discussions in favour of removing flags where they are overused, and have removed flags myself where they directly violate the guideline. These do not. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- These do not?? Well why not? Thats what I asked you . "Examples of infoboxes in which flags are prohibited are given, and these do not include the racing driver infobox" so a racing driver isnt a sportsperson ? Discouraged , yes thats the phrase that is used , and no consensus was reached "Some discussions result in no consensus. "No consensus" means that there is no consensus either way: it means that there is no consensus to take an action, but it also and equally means that there is no consensus not to take the action. What the community does next depends on the context." So what have we learned here ?Murry1975 (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm talking about the examples given of infoboxes in which flags are prohibited: "The guidelines for a number of common infoboxes (e.g. Template:Infobox company, Template:Infobox film, Template:Infobox person, Template:Infobox football biography) explicitly prohibit the use of flag icons." The racing driver infobox is not among them. You're right, "no consensus" means no consensus either way, no consensus to take the action, and no consensus not to do so - so the thing to do is to leave the articles in question as they are. I don't add flags where there haven't been any before, and they should also not be removed in cases where they have existed for some length of time. For example, I edit many footballer infoboxes every week, but none of them has a flag, and I never add them. Until such time as this joke of a guideline is clarified and arguments such as the very long one I linked you to are unnecessary, I think the best thing is neither to add any new flags or take any away apart from in those infoboxes where flags are prohibited as above. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Completely agree with it being a joke . Somethings are not straight forward , just check a few examples - boxing goes one way or the other depending on who edited it last . The guidelines are going to have to be turned into rules and indicators , I have only been editing a little over two months , the previous time on here was spent reading and observing , seeing how things work , I have to say some of BS that goes on is uncalled for and unjustified in some cases . I will revert my edits . Thanks for your help but once again its the damn guidelines room for misunderstanding .Murry1975 (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- I totally agree with you - different sports have different ways of doing things. Golf has flags, football doesn't, for example. Until the guidelines specifically deal with each case and say yes or no, then we're going to have these issues. But trying to get people to agree is so hard. Personally I'd be OK with just F1 drivers having the infobox flag, but I have to be seen to be consistent or other editors can use it against me the next time it's discussed. Thanks for understanding, and I hope that somehow the guidelines get clarified soon. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Completely agree with it being a joke . Somethings are not straight forward , just check a few examples - boxing goes one way or the other depending on who edited it last . The guidelines are going to have to be turned into rules and indicators , I have only been editing a little over two months , the previous time on here was spent reading and observing , seeing how things work , I have to say some of BS that goes on is uncalled for and unjustified in some cases . I will revert my edits . Thanks for your help but once again its the damn guidelines room for misunderstanding .Murry1975 (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm talking about the examples given of infoboxes in which flags are prohibited: "The guidelines for a number of common infoboxes (e.g. Template:Infobox company, Template:Infobox film, Template:Infobox person, Template:Infobox football biography) explicitly prohibit the use of flag icons." The racing driver infobox is not among them. You're right, "no consensus" means no consensus either way, no consensus to take the action, and no consensus not to do so - so the thing to do is to leave the articles in question as they are. I don't add flags where there haven't been any before, and they should also not be removed in cases where they have existed for some length of time. For example, I edit many footballer infoboxes every week, but none of them has a flag, and I never add them. Until such time as this joke of a guideline is clarified and arguments such as the very long one I linked you to are unnecessary, I think the best thing is neither to add any new flags or take any away apart from in those infoboxes where flags are prohibited as above. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- These do not?? Well why not? Thats what I asked you . "Examples of infoboxes in which flags are prohibited are given, and these do not include the racing driver infobox" so a racing driver isnt a sportsperson ? Discouraged , yes thats the phrase that is used , and no consensus was reached "Some discussions result in no consensus. "No consensus" means that there is no consensus either way: it means that there is no consensus to take an action, but it also and equally means that there is no consensus not to take the action. What the community does next depends on the context." So what have we learned here ?Murry1975 (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- The word used there is "discouraged", not "prohibited". It says "examples of acceptable exceptions are..." without listing all exceptions. Examples of infoboxes in which flags are prohibited are given, and these do not include the racing driver infobox. The guideline is obviously ambiguous, but there was no consensus to change the wording of the guideline to prohibit these flags. The "distraction" element is bogus, and has not at any stage, by anyone, been verified. Identical flags used elsewhere in infoboxes are apparently not distracting, rendering that element of the guideline unworkable. I understand that the discussion is long, but you can see that no decision was made to change anything, and no real progress was made. Incidentally, I have contributed to many discussions in favour of removing flags where they are overused, and have removed flags myself where they directly violate the guideline. These do not. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Eddie Irvine
[edit]Hi again, yeah Irvine's situation is easily the most complicated of all the drivers. Even the race organisers and the FIA got it wrong on a number of occasions! We've discussed it quite a few times and according to a consensus of the sources, the British flag is the one to use even though he identifies as Irish. As you worked out yourself, even though the Irish motorsport authority issued his F1 licence, his nationality on the licence was British, therefore he raced as a Brit and (should have) had the British flag raised on the podium. Cheers! Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Happy New Year
[edit]and a Happy New Year to you too, stay safe, and sorry about the mistakes Dontforgetthisone (talk) 22:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)