User talk:UpDown/Archive4

Date formats after autoformatting

With the recent deprecation of date autoformatting, "raw" dates are becoming increasingly visible on Wikipedia. Strong views are being expressed, and even some edit-warring here and there. A poll has been initiated to gauge community support to help us develop wording in the Manual of Style that reflects a workable consensus. As you have recently commented on date formats, your input would be helpful in getting this right. Four options have been put forward, summarised as:

1. Use whatever format matches the variety of English used in the article
2. For English-speaking countries, use the format used in the country, for non-English-speaking countries, use the format chosen by the first editor that added a date to the article
3. Use International format, except for U.S.-related articles
4. Use the format used in the country

The poll may be found here, as a table where you may indicate your level of support for each option above. --Pete (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:STALK

Not an accusation at all, I thought the policy might be useful to you, given the hassle you've had from another editor. Justin talk 08:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the clarification! And thanks for the link; I'm hoping the user will now move on, but I'll user it if necessary. Regards,--UpDown (talk) 08:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I've been there and know what its like. Justin talk 09:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

red links

Hi, thanks for that info, but would you explain why? Doesn't having red links just indicate that someone has been wrong in their formatting? I'm not complaining, just asking for information.

See this. It suggests it has no article at the moment, not that its wrongly formatted.--UpDown (talk) 14:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Very good point. Thanks.

Don't revert my Poirot edit!

I actually had a proper reason to edit that page. ITV1 is not the official name of the network, it is only a brand name used by the 12 ITV stations in England and Wales, the 3 ITV stations in Scotland and Northern Ireland do not use the ITV1 brand. The network is still officially called ITV. Also, LWT still produces the programme, but not under it's own brand. Kieranthompson

It's far more widely known as ITV1, even the presenters call and newspapers call it this. The link to ITV makes it clear. Before making such widespread edits have you been I advise you start at talk at the TV TalkPage.--UpDown (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Also in your edits to The Palace you are changing the title of a reference. YOU CANNOT DO THIS. It is a direct quote from the paper's article title - the article says "ITV1" not "ITV".--UpDown (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Tool for date audit on articles

Are you aware that there is a tool that will do a date audit on articles? It will make all the dates consistent in either 'dmy' or 'mdy' format, and delink them. This can be done with just one click. All you have to do is go to User:UpDown/monobook.js and paste

importScript('User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js');

into it. Press 'Save page'. Then clear your cache using the instructions on that page. Then go to an article and press 'Edit this page'. Look in the 'toolbox' on the left below 'What links here' and you will see a command 'Full audit to dmy'. Let me know if you need help. Lightmouse (talk) 20:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring

Rather than goad Andrea by reverting more than three times in a row, you should report her to the relevant noticeboard, rather than revert yourself. At the moment, you have also reverted more than three-times in a 24-hour period. This is unwise, unless the vandalism is very obvious such as the use of foul language or an obvious lie about a living person. For minor and trivial formatting or grammar issues, no damage will be done if you wait a while for someone else to act. DrKiernan (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I have reported to a noticeboard.--UpDown (talk) 13:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I also resent your suggestion I was "goad"ing Andrea. I was revering an edit that broke the MOS. I gave her the MOS link, and she ignored this.--UpDown (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that was a poor choice of words.

What I meant was: if she reverts more than three times in a 24-hour period again, you should report her to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR for breach of WP:3RR, rather than reverting her yourself. Reverting an edit more than three times in a 24-hour period should only be done when the edits are obvious vandalism, such as use of foul language, or breach of WP:BLP. DrKiernan (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

contretemps

Andreamimi asked for advice at the MOSNUM offshoot page on autoformatting, and in pasting the standard info into my reply on her talk page, I noticed that there's been a mini edit-war between you and her. It's great that you're actively supporting the dissemination of the change in practice, but perhaps you might consider at an earlier stage where there's misunderstanding the provision of a link to this page, or less dramatically, perhaps, simply paste in the capped list of disadvantages, which are included on that page. It does the cause harm when there's edit-warring, and frankly, there's so much DA to remove, we're better of going on to the next DAed article and making our improvements there. Thanks! Tony (talk) 13:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

There was an edit indeed, however, I was not the first to remove the date links from the article (its not something I've gone round doing much, only to articles on my watchlist). I removed them after AndreaMimi added them back in. I gave her the MOS link, but she later admitted she didn't read this and just continued reverting anyway. As I'm sure you'll appreciate it is most frustating when you are providing a clear MOS link but the person reverts anyway.--UpDown (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to Charles

Hiya, UpDown. I just saw your edit to Charles... I think we should probably put it back the way it was; saying that he will inherit all 16 thrones is completely NPOV. It could be argued that your version is a POV putting UK before the other 15 realms. Cheers. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 08:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

But I believe there is a precedence for this. On the Queen's article the infobox says "of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms", and does the House of Windsor article. To not mention the UK at all is highly misleading for the average reader, and frankly POV. Putting "the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" is a POV way that makes clear they are all equal but the UK is the most well known and the one with which they are most active. I believe a long discussion lead to the current wording in the Queen's infobox, and I believe we should use that as a precendent for wording.--UpDown (talk) 08:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Most of the reason for that wording is because of two editors who are convinced that the Queen is really only the Queen of the UK, and that the other realms are subordinate. In reality, of course, she is equally Queen of all the realms. I'm going to revert the change; please discuss it at the Talk page for the article before changing it back. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 08:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You have basically ignored my above totally - I find that very disappointing. A decision was reached with regard to that and it serves well for other articles. I am going to change, please give me reasons why Charles' page should differ from the Queen (perhaps moving any discussion to article's talk, not mine).--UpDown (talk) 08:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't ignore it. The fact is, separating out one realm from the other 15 is POV, and again, the reason why that decision was reached at the Queen's article is almost entirely due to two extremely vocal editors who simply would not allow any other version. My understanding of that argument is that everyone just gave up. I understand where you're coming from, but it's not NPOV. And regarding your most recent addition: I'm pretty certain most people associate him with the UK, but if you're going to make a claim like that, you really need to add a source. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 08:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the reasons maybe, the decision was apparently made, you can't ignore the decision because of how it was apparently reached. But regardless, how about the wording currently on the Queen's page "she is resident in and most directly involved with the United Kingdom, her oldest realm" (changing "her" to "the" and "she" to "he"). This I believe is a good sentence, and sits fine on the Queen's article, and would perhaps work well on Charles' as it avoids the possibly-POV sounding "most associated".--UpDown (talk) 08:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The decision was made, yes--on another article, not on the Charles article. I don't much like that wording either, but it's a reasonably good compromise. You'll need to remove 'his oldest realm', though, as he doesn't have any realms yet :P Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 08:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

But I believe the decision to serve well for other articles - like House of Windsor - and so avoid a debate every time. Anyway, I have added the phrasing suggested.--UpDown (talk) 08:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: what was decided upon for the text at Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom was: "Elizabeth II is the queen regnant of 16 independent states and their overseas territories and dependencies." "United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms" is only used in the infobox. Per your assertions, UpDown, this should be acceptable for House of Windsor as well. --G2bambino (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you are getting to above? If you want to remove UK from opening line of House of Windsor as its in the infobox that's fine. But on Charles, its needed in lead as it can't be in infobox.--UpDown (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You stated that what was done at Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom was a precedent to follow. However, you were mistaken about what was done at Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. I was merely clarifying what was done. --G2bambino (talk) 02:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. 'Unreferenced' doesn't automatically mean 'remove'--only if the information is controversial. Charles is a member of the house of Oldenburg through his father; membership in royal houses is transmitted by blood. However, I added the clarification that he will reign as a member of the House of Windsor. There's some discussion about this on the talk page for the article. I don't want to get into an edit war with you, which is why I proposed that compromise. Could you please put the section back? Leave out that ridiculous list of descent, sure, but can you put back the text regarding lineage? Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 07:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but the whole section is unnecessary, and the unreferencing doesn't help. The sentence "which means that if Charles were to choose an historically accurate house name it would be Oldenburg/Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg," - (a) its unreferenced (b) its irrelevant, he's officially a Windsor (c) who are we to say what he should chose? I also don't see it as particularly amazing that he'll be the first Monarch to be descended from Queen Victoria - we don't need to say that.--UpDown (talk) 07:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the "which means that if Charles were to choose an historically accurate house name it would be Oldenburg/Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg," should be removed, but noting his membership in both houses shouldn't be. They are uncontroversial facts and therefore don't need references. It's true that he is currently officially a Windsor; that could change when he accedes to the throne. He could reign as Windsor, Mountbatten-Windsor, or Oldenburg--all would be equally viable. And it is an interesting note that he is descended from Queen Victoria through both his mother and his father. I'm going to restore the section; please take it to the talk page for the article if you want to discuss whether or not it should be included. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 07:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Right, so again, you are going to stop the discussion half-way and do what you want anyway? Why not wait till we have finished the discussion? There is nothing amazing about being descended from Victoria twice, and I will remove this unless there is consensus to include it. I would also want a reliable ref for Oldenburg claim.--UpDown (talk) 07:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There has been a long-standing consensus to include the section. You need to achieve consensus for removal. Oldenburg doesn't need a reference--please see the new version. There is nothing about 'historically accurate' anymore. Phillip is unquestionably a member of the House, which automatically means that Charles is as well. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 08:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If there is no reference, how do we know its true? And please point me to the agreement for inclusion of the Queen Victoria section?--UpDown (talk) 08:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It is an uncontroversial fact. If you want it referenced, go find a reference. The agreement regarding Queen Victoria is implied by silence; nobody complained about the inclusion, which means that consensus is to include the section. I'm not going to bother reverting you anymore, but I'm fairly certain that someone will tomorrow. I'm sorry that you seem to think this is adversarial. It's not. I do suggest that you read about the bold, revert, discuss cycle, which is basically how all editing works on Wikipedia. The short version: you make an edit, someone reverts, you should leave it alone and enter into a discussion with that person about why you feel the edit is necessary. I am saying this all to you as a friend, as someone who has also had to deal with a certain user who is not, let's be honest, very easy to deal with. Cheers. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 08:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Uncontraversial maybe, but I still think worthy of a reference. I have reworded leaving the most important points in. If editors really believe that Queen Victoria thing is worthy of mention, fine, it can go back, but many things on articles just stay because no one notices them or no one can be bothered to remove them. I thank you for your final comments, and I will bear them in mind.--UpDown (talk) 08:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Here, have a kitten. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 08:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!! But that was so terrifying I had to remove it! Far to scary!--UpDown (talk) 08:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Date links

Thanks for the update, no I hadn't read it. I'd always thought linking dates on articles was mandatory.

--6afraidof7 (talk) 12:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Mandy Dingle

The notability tag put by someone a year ago (and none removed) says, if notability cannot be established, the article should be deleted, merged or redirected. Since prod was rejected, I think converting to a redirect to a list, reserving the article's history, is the best solution until someone presents an improved version of the article with references or something like that. I encourage you to write an article with short summaries about past characters of the show. All the information is in article's history. In Coronation Streets this helps me copy the whole content there. I am not an expert in writing summaries and certainly not have the time to do it. Friendly, -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a good way to avoid notability problems think: List of past recurring and minor Coronation Street characters. If you start it I can help by adding information there. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Palace

I'm not going to get into a push-me-pull-you over The Palace article again because, let's face it, it's one of the dumbest things to argue over. However, the new TV manual o' style states the premise/plot section comes before production. I re-labelled the section "premise" as it only provides the most basic overview of the series; the actual "plot" is covered in the episode summaries. On a related matter, do you have time to help tidy and expand the reception section? I feel we could get this listed at GAN inside a week. Bradley0110 (talk) 11:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

While I'm aware what the MOS says, it is often ignored. To take two Featured Articles, The Simpsons and Lost, both have production first, and this seems to me to be the more logical and most-used way. The "Premise" thing - these sections are always called "Plot" and I see no reason why this page should be different. I wish you luck with getting it to GAN, but personally this is something that I've never been interested in, due the unnecessary effort it often requires. This article in my view is very good as it stands, and the Reception section is a good length.--UpDown (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Input

There is a post on WP:AN that you may or may not wish to comment on. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 07:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

As Time Goes By (TV series)

It is NOT better if those notes have NOTHING what-so-ever to do WITH the plot of the show. They are side note trivia. It is not better that way. If you want to make it better MOVE the notes that do not involve the plot OUT to another section. 4.240.78.48 (talk) 07:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with merging the info as show. It's fine.--UpDown (talk) 07:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U

There is currently an open Request for Comment on User Conduct here, regarding G2bambino. As someone with past interactions with him, you are invited to comment. — [ roux ] [x] 15:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

BRF template

Hi UpDown.. I'm just wondering if you're planning on commenting any more on the BRF template discussion? I'd like to wrap it up soon (whichever way the consensus goes, I'm not saying 'wrap it up' to force it to what I want). [ roux ] [x] 19:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Time for resolution

Hiya. For several months now, the article naming for 18th Century British royals has been ever-which-where — all over the shop. In an attempt to solve this, I have prepared a page for discussion: here. Please, please, please come and discuss, even contribute to the Poll. Cheers! DBD 15:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Penelope Keith

I've just noticed your reversion. I did not change it to 'middle class' but to 'upper middle'. I do not beleive she played an aristocrat. I would have put her firmly in the category of (once) landed gentry. This surely puts her firmly in upper middle, not upper which most would reserve for, at least, titled people? 195.11.66.58 (talk) 11:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

No, upper-class is not just titled people - who would be referred to as the aristocracy - the landed gentry like Audrey are upper-class; in fact her family would be a perfect example. She is certainly not middle-class.--UpDown (talk) 11:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting observation, but does it accord with the sentiment of people in each class. I apprecaite that this is a grey area, but I've never known a Peer who would consider people, such as the charecter Audrey, as upper class. I know that the working / lower middles might well see her as upper class - as in "upper class twit" but I can't agree. Any way, it's such a minor point, I won't revert, but I may look it up in debretts or similar, and rethink Kingsbench (talk) 11:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well there's is no definite answer, but I think its clear the character is meant to be upper-class - a woman whose family have been Lords of the Manor for 400 years owning a manor house and large estate, and with attitudes etc, is clearly meant to be upper-class.--UpDown (talk) 11:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U request

A Request for comment/User conduct has been initated here regarding User:Roux (formerly User:PrinceOfCanada). As someone wish past interactions with this user, you are invited to comment. --G2bambino (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy

You have reversed my move becuase "she has never been styled Princess Alexandra, Lady Ogilvy". However, article names should never include styles. The article is Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, not Her Majesty The Queen or whatever variation would be preferable. We have e.G. only one page starting with "The Hon."[1] (and that one should be moved and rewritten), and none (about persons) starting with The Honourable[2]. At first glance, this is the only page about a real person to have the style in the title.[3]

Articles should be placed at the name of the people, excluding styles. I'll start the discussion at the talk page of the article. Fram (talk) 13:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to Paul Myners, without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. We have some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. I notice that you are moving pages to "Full name, Title name". This does not accord with the MOS, as stated in you edit summaries. cygnis insignis 17:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You clearly have not read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#British peerage. Let me quote from it "Life peers (ie, people who have peerages awarded exclusively for their lifetime but who neither inherit it nor pass it on to anyone else)¹ use the same standard as for hereditary peers: use the dignity in the title, unless the individual is exclusively referred to by personal name. For example: Quintin Hogg, Baron Hailsham of St Marylebone (not "Quintin McGarel Hogg"), but Margaret Thatcher (not "Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher.")". Is that clear? Myners is not exclusively referred to without it - thats normally only PMs and people like Richard Attenborough - and thus you move back was incorrect. I ask that you more it back immediatley or I shall create a move request.--UpDown (talk) 08:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I am also generally offended by the patronising tone of your message. "Welcome to Wikipedia" - I've been on here for years! "Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia." - again totally irrelevant to a long term contributor. I suggest you fully read the MoS on article titles before lecturing others.--UpDown (talk) 11:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the tone is better than yours; it happens to be a template, take it up with the author. There is no harm in rereading policy and guidelines, especially when special interests create project specific exceptions. I don't know that I am inclined to cede to your demand to more it back immediatley, and I'm unimpressed by your willingness to find personal offense in someone disagreeing with you. I will suggest that you get excited about improving the document instead; the blood gets pumping on non-trival edits, even if there is no point to them. Rereading basic policies is something we should all do now and then. I answered on the talk page.

Sorry we did not meet on better terms, maybe next time. Regards, cygnis insignis 14:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I realise it is a template - and one that was inappripiate in this instance. Guidelines around peers are quite clear and well known and I'm sorry but I did get annoyed when someone comes along, moves it, and tells me I'm in the wrong. --UpDown (talk) 14:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Careful mate! cygnis insignis 09:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate on "Careful mate!"?--UpDown (talk) 09:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

"Years" in infoboxes

Hi.I guess you wanted to contact me as well. In 80%+ of the cases "years" (duration) in infoboxes is useless (and 100% unreferenced). Still, if you think it's important, we can add it to the generic {{Infobox soap character}}. That's the reason I am not removing from many of the infoboxes. I had that in mind. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 12:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it is important. For many soap characters, they do appear and disappear (Peter Barlow in Coronation Street is a perfect example) and it is important to show this in the infbox. Otherwise, it gives the impression in Barlow's case that he has appeared constantly since 1965. The infobox is the best and most concise way to put this info. If it could be put in the generic template that would be great. Kind Regards,--UpDown (talk) 12:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll add it to the generic infobox as soon as I finish with the substitution. I am doing it manually and it takes time. Cheers, Magioladitis (talk) 12:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That's great, many thanks.--UpDown (talk) 12:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Please participate in the discussion in Template talk:Infobox soap character in order reach a consensus. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Kathy Glover

I think we can add the history of Kathy Brookman to the place of Kathy Glover. Q: Why was she called Brookman? Do you know why the redirect was deleted? -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have no idea why she was called Brookman, there's nothing on the article to answer it and I have no recollection of her marrying such a person. The redirect was deleted because "R3: Recent redirect from implausible typo, link, or misnomer" [4].--UpDown (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I am thinking to do the following trick: I am restoring the deleted article, I add the last version of Kathy Glover to it (history is not significant there), I move the K. Brookman article on to K. Glover and delete again K. Brookman. So we save the history. Are you ok with that? -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

A quick Google check turns up many hits from Kathy Brookman - including locatetv and DigitalSpy - so its a valid redirect anyway I think. But I can't seem to find why the name...?! Otherwise your idea sounds fine.--UpDown (talk) 12:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems that google search for Kathy Brookman, gives only copies of Wikipedia. I did the trick described above and now the full history is there. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. If I ever find any reliable reference for Brookman I'll add it.--UpDown (talk) 12:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Kathy was credited as Brookman in the episods based around Seth Armstrong's death and subsequent funeral and it was mentioned that she had remarried while in Australia, but her husband's forename was unknown..

--Conquistador2k6 22:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

ITV1 brand name

I have noticed you have been undoing some of my edits to ITV programmes. Let's get one thing straight: ITV1 isn't a stand-alone channel - it is a brand name used in England, Wales, Southern Scotland and unofficially in the Channel Islands. The brand name used in the North and Central areas of Scotland is STV, and in Northern Ireland it's UTV. Channel 3 as a whole is called either ITV Network, or simply ITV. I ask you stop reverting my edits back to the incorrect brand.
GMc^talk 15:33, 07 December 2008 (UTC)

The channel is known near universally as ITV1, as it far more logical to refer to it as this. See this link [5] which not only shows the media use ITV1 but also that ITV themselves do "ITV1 has launched a number of new and original shows as part of its 2008 schedule" said a "ITV spokeswoman". Sometimes the precise legality or technicality of something is overidden by something's common use. This is one of these ocassions.--UpDown (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, as you admit, it is not called "ITV" anywhere, either ITV, STV or UTV. So changing it to "ITV" changes it to a name no one uses. 90% (a guess I admit) use ITV1, ITV themselves says "ITV1", the media say "ITV1" and the channel's presenters refer to it as "ITV1".--UpDown (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

As I have said - ITV1 is only a brand name used in England and Wales. Residents of either Scotland or Northen Ireland most likely wouldn't have heard of the ITV1 brand, and if they have - they don't understand it. I didn't admit it isn't "ITV" anywhere, I stated that the Network as a whole is called ITV. If you look at the ITV1 article, you will see the statement: "The ITV1 brand, however, should be distinguished from the UK-wide ITV, of which ITV1 forms a large proportion."
GMc^talk 17:03, 07 December 2008 (UTC)

You haven't answered my other - crucial - points about the fact ITV themselves use ITV1, the media use ITV1 and the presenters use ITV1. Are you telling me therefore that people in those areas never read papers/magazines or listen to TV presenters. Common use trumps precise technicality, and certainly trumps ITV, which is not what the channel is called ANYWHERE. --UpDown (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The channel IS called ITV, just branded ITV1 in England and Wales. ITV bosses are just ignorant of the fact that ITV1 is only used south of the border. With STV/UTV and ITV plc not having a great working relationship, presenters of some of the programmes use the ITV1 name, although have cut down in recent years after both STV and UTV making complaints. Most media outlets use the ITV1 name because that is what they are seeing on their screens, not the STV or UTV brands. The name ITV is known by most around the UK, whereas ITV1 isn't, therefore "ITV" should be used in all articles.
GMc^talk 18:26, 07 December 2008 (UTC)

I see, so you know more about ITV than they themselves do? Interesting. I would disagree that presenters have cut down on using ITV1, personally I hear it a lot. The name ITV is indeed known across the UK, but as a company/broadcaster. Now we have ITV2 (and ITV3, ITV4), people know it as ITV4, indeed at a guess what at least 85% of the UK's population recieves it as ITV1. At the end of the day, know one gets it as ITV, so its completly wrong it call it that, its Wikipedia almost inventing a channel name because of one editor's view. Common usage demands ITV1.--UpDown (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting link [6]. Ofcom are officially using the term ITV1 for the channel, while later using ITV to refer to the broadcaster as a whole. Again, more evidence that ITV1 is the official term to describe the channel - and how Wikipedia should describe it.--UpDown (talk) 08:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I suggest you read the articles on ITV and ITV1. It explains everything, in layman terms.
GMc^talk 11:55, 08 December 2008 (UTC)

You cannot back up your arguments by directing me to Wikipedia pages, which you yourself may have written. I would need external links. You are also ignoring 90% of my points, the common usage, the Ofcom source etc etc.--UpDown (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't write the ITV or ITV1 articles - anyway...Ofcom using the ITV1 brand is simply ignorance. If you look at the Ofcom link to posted, you will see that it says "ITV1 and ITV4 have applied for Ofcom consent to broadcast live coverage of the Rugby World Cup in 2007." The ITV1 team would have applied on behalf of the entire ITV Network (ITV1, STV, UTV, Channel Television). I point you to another Ofcom page: [7]. You will see that the page shows who is the licensee of each channel is. The licensee of Channel 3 is "ITV".

On another note - since you seem to know it all, the articles that you reverted: Agatha Christie's Poirot (which started in 1989), and Midsomer Murders (1997) were originally aired on a channel that, at the time used regional branding (LWT, HTV, etc.) but the channel as a whole was refered to as ITV, just like it is now. Like I keep trying to drum into your head - ITV1 is a BRAND NAME used ONLY in England, Wales, Southern Scotland and the Channel Islands. Branding it ITV1 in Central and the North of Scotland and Northern Ireland is simply arrogrance, not an official name!
GMc^talk 22:05, 08 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say you did write the articles, but the point remains. You cannot back up an argument with a Wikipedia page in the same way we can't self-reference. You seem relucant to find 3rd party sources that back your argument. I also find it interesting that if a source disagree with you, you brand it ignorant. The "licensee" is indeed ITV, but the channel is known as ITV1. You are now making rude remarks - "since you seem to know it all" - and if you continue with these unpleasant remarks I will end this conversation. To quote you "like I keep trying to drum into your head" (again that a bit uncivil in my opinion), ITV1 is how the channel is known by 90% (give or take) of its watchers, its how ITV refer to, how the media refer to it, how the presenters refer to it. Common usage. You also say "ONLY in England, Wales, Southern Scotland and the Channel Islands" - well thats a fair whack of the UK there. I don't think "ONLY" is really correct.--UpDown (talk) 08:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

And yes, I'm aware those programmes first aired when the channel was known as "ITV" not "ITV1" as it is now, but I feel it better to put how the channel is now known.--UpDown (talk) 08:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to answer all of my points above - in particular finding third party references to back you up - and explain why the clear common usage you feel should be ignored. And why we say it aired on "ITV" - a name the channel is not known as anywhere. It would be nice if you would continue the discussion rather than revert.--UpDown (talk) 08:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I have started a discussion on each talkpage you have used the ITV1 brand in. Please don't revert my edits during the discussion.
GMc^talk 14:59, 09 January 2009 (UTC)

December 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Agatha Christie's Poirot. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Note that policy on edit warring, which this clearly is, now covers "slow revert" edit warring. Please discuss this on a relevant noticeboard or portal, or start an RFC to decide broader community consensus. Verbal chat 08:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for your words. Please note, however, that I am attempting a discussion above, but the other user has ignored this of late and just plain reverted anyway.--UpDown (talk) 09:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

That's why I think that it's time to get broader community input, but I'm not sure of the best method for that. There is probably a TV project or a noticeboard which could be used, or file an RfC (on the ITV page and link to it on all related pages, with neutral wording?) Verbal chat 10:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The Heart of Christmas (My Family)

Hello. I feel it would be best if you opened an WP:AfD for all those My Family episodes recommending re-direction to the list of My Family episodes page rather than re-direct without discussion. That way the creator can comment and learn more about Wikipedia polices. Thank you. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 22:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Lilith/Luke/Jon/etc. Dingle

The main reason I edited that is because the entries for Lilith and her four children basically repeated the same several paragraphs five different times, with only some slight variation for Luke. Maybe, since the four kids had little storyline of their own, they should be combined into one group. --JamesB3 (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Each character is seperate and should have their own profiles, as I said before each should be viewed differently, as seperate characters. Also, your removal does not save space - as it just leaves a huge white space. Information can be repeated as their are seperate characters, with seperate profiles. In the same way information on, say Marlon Dingle's article is most likely repeated on Donna Windsor-Dingle's article. Is that wrong? No, because they are seperate articles. The principle is the same here.--UpDown (talk) 07:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

They're just minor characters at the end of it and they've been merged to the minors sections and given seperate information exclusive to them (though it may be harder for the Twins and Jon than Luke or Lilith) Conquistador2k6 22:46 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Residences in Emmerdale

It's often mentioned in passing that some characters are still living in these locations (i.e.; The Daggerts in Portugal; mentioned when Danny left to join them). Conquistador2k6 22:46 7 January 2009 (UTC)

And that was a few years ago. They might have moved since or died. There is simply no need. It is mentioned in the text, why mention in the infobox when it isn't certain anyway?--UpDown (talk) 07:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Time Team

Hi,

I have two questions.

1. If i make something up on my own page can you have a look at, then discuss about it? As there has been a at least one person saying it is diffucult to read and follow in the current format and even when its split it will still be hard. If the discussion mean consusu has not changed then my second question takes over then.

2. Do oyu mind if i start creating the serparate article for each of the years i think 94-97 first, then 98-2000, then 2001-2003, then 2004-2006 and finally for now 2007-2009

I think the main comlaint from what i can gather is contents because it has so much, my first proposel will be keeping airdate order but doing it in a new format as i say if you look at it once i complete it and comment on it i be grateful, conseus might not change but at least then it been discussed.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay. I am happy to look at something you create on your own page if you would like me to. I don't honestly, though, believe the current page is to read. Yes, its long, but the format is simple and quite readable. I also certainly don't think it needs splitting - and certainly not to that many pages, that would be excessive. The format is the generally accepted format for episode lists - and I don't think should be changed. Personally I'd get rid of the coordinates. --UpDown (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well i do not see the point of the coordinates it only adds a bit of information that can be found on the page relating to the location anyway. I agree the format is simple but i am can not say for certain it is readable, the only reason i suggest so many pages would be so that each new page would then look far short in contents length ie the contents box at the top of the page to give links to each of the seasons or specials. I would probally stripper out the short summary and have it part of the serpate article, that would reduce the part further and make it a slightly more readable. i will ge tback to you witha few formats once i have completed them in my own sub pages. Unfortnalyl due to the size of the page according to the wikipedia length article the list does need to be split i know it only guideance though--Andrewcrawford (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well we both appear to agree that the coordinates are unnecessary. Maybe we should start a discussion on the episode page's talk on removing them?--UpDown (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Either that or on the talk page of the person who added in the first place as i am mythed as to why they got added, but saying that i notice there a ambrition to do with something similiar well one of the bots, scripts that seems to be goign through masiv eamounts of pages either adding information like this tha tisnt neccceasry or rmeoving neccessary

information.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Discussion is now taking place about issues on the list your comments would be welcome even though there the opposite to mines i prefer to havea consensus and opinions form both sides :) The test page i have put up is not finished but is roughly the idea i think it needs.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

R from merge

Hi. I readded R from merge in "Ivan Jones" redirect. R from merge tells us that this redirect has a history that was used in the target article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I couldn't see the point in it, but will ensure not to remove in future.--UpDown (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is a point. First of all, the categorisation of the redirects and secondly that the material was used to create another article is a good reason not to delete it as a redirect. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Mollie Sugden

I noticed you undid my edit to the article on Mollie Sugden where I added that she currently resides in the Isle of Man. The reference for this is Wikipedia itself, specifically List of residents of the Isle of Man (and the fact that she is well known on the Island). Perhaps you could explain why you have a problem with this addition. If you don't then I will put it back. I have put your Talk page on my watch list, so please respond here. HairyWombat (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we can't self-reference. After all otherwise I could insert a 'fact' on one article, then use that to back it up on another article. We would need a reliable reference.--UpDown (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

What WP:VER actually states is:

"All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." [Emphasis in original.]

so we would only need a reliable reference for a statement which is controversial, and so likely to be challenged. The fact that Mollie Sugden lives on the Isle of Man is not controversial -- after all, she has to live somewhere. And, as I state above, she is well known on the Island. (I have even met her, although this was many years ago.) I don't feel that you have explained why you have a problem with this non-controversial statement. If the statement was only opinion or was controversial then it would be a different matter. But your interpretation of WP:VER seems to be different from what the policy actually states. HairyWombat (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I hate to be akward but I "challenge" it. I strongly feel that where a living person lives should be referenced. I also don't see the relevance, its not a vital fact, and if a reference can't be found, it doesn't harm the article.--UpDown (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The Archers

You don't need to update the episode count every day - it has the "as of" date with it, so I'm sure people can work out how many episodes there have been since! Stephenb (Talk) 08:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Frankly I don't see the need for your above comments. Why should people have to work it out? Wikipedia is here to be up to date.--UpDown (talk) 08:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No need to be rude about it, I was only trying to save you effort... And it is still up-to-date (as much as it needs to be) by giving the episode count as of a particular date, IMO Stephenb (Talk) 09:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You weren't meant to read that rudely, but to be honest yours was the oddest message I've ever had on Wikipedia. If I thought it was too much 'effort' I would do it, no one is forcing me. It is only up to date if accurate as of today, not last year or whatever. It's also far harder to work out if left for too long.--UpDown (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Temporary injunction and your use of my monobook script

Hi,

I am pleased to see that you have used my monobook script to remove the autoformatting or linking of dates or other functions; I hope you have found it useful.

This is to let you know that ArbCom has announced a temporary injunction against the "mass delinking of dates". You can still delink dates on an occasional basis; however, you may wish to be cautious and use the script only for its non-date functions until the issue is resolved by an RFC poll. You may wish to express your view on autoformatting and date linking in the RFC at: Wikipedia:Date_formatting_and_linking_poll.

Regards Lightmouse (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:1886 elections in Europe

I notice that this category you created is unpopulated (empty). In other words, no Wikipedia pages belong to it. If it remains unpopulated for four days, it may be deleted without discussion, in accordance with Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#C1. I'm notifying you in case you wish to (re-)populate it by adding [[Category:1886 elections in Europe]] to pages that belong in it.

I tagged the category. This will not, in itself, cause the category to be deleted. It serves to document (in the page history) that the category was empty at the time of tagging and also to alert other watchers that the category is in jeopardy. You are welcome to remove the tag if you wish. However, removing the tag will not prevent deletion of the category if it remains empty.

If you created the category in error, or it is no longer needed, you can speed up the deletion process by tagging it with {{db-author}}.

I am a human being, not a bot, so you can contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

British political parties

I have made suggestions for inclusion criteria for Template:British political parties on the talk page, and I am about to open an RfC. Comments welcome. Fences and windows (talk) 23:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfair deletion

I suggest you start waching the show next week and then you can judge whether the character is in the show and has a worthy storyline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonshank (talk • contribs) 08:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Gordon Jackson filmography

This is standard for actors. See Alistair Sim, Anthony Perkins, etc. etc. Not only does it provide important information, but it also provides links to the movies themselves. Referencing is only required for material that is likely to be challenged. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Well then I challenge the information. Also, the information you give is not in the format of filmographies on featured articles such as Jake Gyllenhaal. This also doesn't appear to list uncredited performances, and other really minor roles. I will be removing it due to the lack of correct formating. Frankly is makes the page look very poor. --UpDown (talk) 07:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The way it is formatted in the Gyllenhaal article is the older, discouraged method. Since you have an issue with a format that nobody else is complaining about, I suggest you start a discussion at WT:FILM. In the meantime, please stop deleting useful information. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Useful - are you serious? I don't see how a list of mainly unlinked films, with no clue as to how important the role is useful!! That's what IMDb is for. Also, you say its a discouraged method. It's a featured article, and most seem to use this. You actually telling me its encouraged to have this sort of list??--UpDown (talk) 12:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you like to read this Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography and then tell me exactly how your style of list is the preferred version...?--UpDown (talk) 12:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I remember reading somewhere it was discouraged because tables are harder to update, but okay. If you want to reformat it, be my guest. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, what a surprise you want me to reformat it. I do hope that any other filmographies you put on other articles are correctly formatted.--UpDown (talk) 07:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I happen to like the format as it is. It's not set in stone that it has to be in a table. If you don't like it, then it's up to you to change it. At least now you'll have to concede that it should be included in the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

So you are just going to completly ignore the guidelines? What gives you the right to do that? Guidelines are there for a reason. And actually I don't accept it should be in the article, but that is no longer the issue. The issue is you thinking you are above the guidelines.--UpDown (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Geez, get over yourself. First, you say I should rigidly abide by the guidelines, then in the next breath, you don't accept them yourself? Puhleeze. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference. I am no longer removing the filmography. In other words I've accepted the fact they exist on here (even though I don't like them). You have been shown a clear guidelines but are going to ignore it. How is that acceptable? Why are you above guidelines. --UpDown (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You say "It's not set in stone that it has to be in a table" - so what do you believe the point of guidelines are? Do you not want articles to be uniform. Any article on an actor would have to abide by guidelines to get to FA status (like the example I gave earlier).--UpDown (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a guideline, something that the project people would like to see implemented, far from a mandatory policy. Since I don't particularly care one way or the other, why should I expend the effort on something I don't consider necessary? You're the one who's so bent out of shape over it. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Frankly your attitude amazes me. You are quite happy to ignore a guidelines just because you don't care 'one way or the other'. You are not the sort of user Wikipedia needs frankly. You create more work for those users who go round tidying pages to make them conform. Clearly you don't think of those hard-working users. I think we can end the discussion here, clearly we won't agree.. --UpDown (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, your arrogance amazes me for someone who has far fewer barnstars and one heck of a lot fewer compliments on their editing. Is it that hard for you to fess up to making a mistake in the first place? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

My arrogance?! Coming from someon who ignores clear and simply style guidelines just because he doesn't care for them! You attitude amazes. The difference between us is that I will no longer remove the filmography, you are still going to format them wrong. Thus I've learnt, you haven't. Apparently you are above guidelines! You going round adding filmographies, knowing other users will have to later tidy them up and format them correctly. As I said, this discussion is ended, I don't wish to talk to a disruptive editor.--UpDown (talk) 07:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)