User talk:Danlaycock/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Danlaycock. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Hi. Could you help? User:Shokatz added false information about ratification of the accession treaty by German parliament with misleading source, despite that the upper chamber (Bundesrat) did not yet ratified it. He broke 3RR rule by making 5 reverts. Ron 1987 (talk) 13:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I liked this edit summary. Made me laugh. CMD (talk) 23:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Ha, I've reverted essentially the same edit several times now on various pages. Talk about jumping the gun! They can't even wait for the outcome of the next United Kingdom general election or the date of the referendum being set before pronouncing the results... TDL (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

DLC,

Thank you for your changes to the UN membership section. It reads much better without the "fully recognized" part and shows the full time observers so as not to make one non-member more significant than the other. Briefzehn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julien Houle (talk • contribs) 19:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Glad I could be of help finding a compromise! TDL (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

"Undid revision 560427698 by Ivan Svircevic (talk) these are dates of depositing the instruments of ratification, not of parliamentary approval."

"VILNIUS -- The Lithuanian parliament has ratified the Stabilization and Association Agreement (SAA) with Serbia on Tuesday, Tanjug has reported. The news agency quoted Rimantas Stankevicius, deputy director of the International Relations Department at the Lithuanian parliament."

http://www.mfa.gov.rs/en/press-service/statements/12134-lithuania-ratifies-saa (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Serbia)

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics.php?yyyy=2013&mm=06&dd=18&nav_id=86664

Gaston28 (talk) 14:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Left a response at Template_talk:Stabilisation_and_Association_Process#The_Lithuanian_parliament_has_ratified_the_SAA_with_Serbia. In summary, the dates in our table are the dates of deposition (which has yet to occur), NOT parliamentary approval. TDL (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey Danlaycock

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Tepido (talk · contribs). Quack, quack. I can't file a SPI at the moment, so I notified you since you filed the last one. Cheers :) Doc talk 21:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind. You should be flattered that he watchlists your page with each new sock! He must like you! Cheers :) Doc talk 00:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like you've got everything under control!

PS: I presume that rather than having my talk page on their watchlist, Tepido saw your comments because you linked their user name (see mw:Echo/Feature_requirements#User_Mention). The new WP:Notifications tool tends to cause much more drama in such situations... TDL (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Doc9871 is a liar. I am don't know who Koov is. I am a new user and I just started editing Wikipedia. Hey tell me who Koov is and what did he do. Then after you show it to me. I will be glad to help. Now stop with the Quack, quack. Tepido (talk) 11:55 am, Today (UTC−6)

Koov, you aren't fooling anyone. Every new sock you create is just going to be blocked. If you want to return to productive editing, you must take up the standard WP:OFFER: six months of no socking and you can have your full editing privliges back. TDL (talk) 01:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

"Cheers give it up Englishman. I am not the user:koov. I don't even know who that person is."[1] I'm no "Englishman"! I was born and raised in the U.S.A.! I guess using the term "Cheers" makes me an Englishman to Koov (not to mention a "liar" and a "very rude man"). Caveat emptor. Doc talk 04:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

You know, I do really hate when people jump in to name-move longstanding articles, especially (a) without discussion (b) to utterly stupid, pulled-out-of-a-hat names like "Greece withdrawal from the eurozone". As article names goes, that is up there with "America burning down in flames"; the wording completely fails to identify the subject matter (Has Greece withdrawn? Among other confusions), is pointlessly clunky, and it doesn't even "spell it out". Please, tell me how "Greece withdrawal from the eurozone" spells "Grexit" Human.v2.0 (talk) 10:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

You know what I hate? When people act like WP:DICKs and refuse to WP:AGF.

One of wikipedia's guidelines is to WP:BEBOLD. I don't need to ask your permission first to make a change to the article as you don't WP:OWN it. If you disagree with the new title, then move it to something better, or back to the old title and I'll start an WP:RM. But angry rants suggesting that the title is "stupid" are really not helpful to building an encyclopedia. I happen to think that using a slang neologism term for the title is "stupid" and unprofessional but I didn't go around insulting those who chose that title. TDL (talk) 18:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Please be careful that yo do not fall in to WP:Ownership with the Unified Patent Court article. You have exhibited some signs by reverting very inconsequential and minor changes and reverting discussed content. Please avoiding falling in to the trap of ownership. Sport and politics (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

And I'd request that you please be careful to follow WP:CONSENSUS. You have exhibited signs of refusing to follow consensus by forcing your desired very inconsequential and minor changes into the article without discussion. Your claim that "discussion has already taken place" is false. While some discussion has taken place, none of the changes which you have attempted to make have been discussed. Please self revert and take it to the talk page if you feel so strongly about making these changes rather than WP:EDITWARRING them in against consensus. TDL (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

With the wikilink. Ladril (talk) 05:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem! Trust me, I'm as eager as you are to have that link prominently displayed. CMD's talk page is on my watchlist, so I know how this discussion is likely to unfold: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Unfortunately for us, it looks like CMD has gone on vacation... TDL (talk) 06:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to European Union Association Agreement may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• index_en.htm#h2-3|title=Free Trade Agreements|accessdate=2013-08-09|publisher=European Commission]]}}</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for being reasonable and willing to compromise. DS (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem! That's pretty standard wording for such states (ie Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic or Republic of Kosovo) so hopefully everyone finds it acceptable. TDL (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello there. I just want to confirm the REAL number of List of specialized agencies of the United Nations. Why did you maintain that there are only 17. I really appreciate you list it up here ONE BY ONE. I'm actually a TUTOR who's teaching this subject at Malaysian public university. TQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.48.222.13 (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

After looking at this further, I now think that there are only 15. See [9] where the UN lists them: " The twelve specialized agencies were: the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO); the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO); the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD); the International Labour Organization (ILO); the International Maritime Organization (IMO); the International Telecommunications Union (ITU); the United Nations Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO); the Universal Postal Union (UPU); the World Health Organization (WHO); the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO); and, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, although linked with the United Nations by agreements leaving them complete independence, are sometimes listed as specialized agencies. They are, in any case, parts of the United Nations system." A few years later [10] says "A new specialized agency, the World Tourism Organization, joined the United Nations system to become the UNWTO." So that gives 15.

Basically it comes down to whether you count the World Bank Group as 5 individual Specialized Agencies or 1 group Specialized Agency. If you count them as 1 then you get 15 total, but if you count them as 5 you get 19 total. It seems that the UN counts them as 1, so that's why I've listed 15, but if you have better sources that say 19 that would be good. TDL (talk) 04:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for you answer. I also wondered about this for a while. Because previously, no matter how I count it, it won't be 17. It was either more or less, but surely not 17. I agree with your reasoning. It will be 15 Specialized Agencies of UN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.48.222.13 (talk) 04:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks for raising the issue so that we could get it right! TDL (talk) 05:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

We use skulls as the symbol for CWs, so I assumed it was appropriate , but I don't care if you prefer something else , or if you need to correct my errors . But some indication of who actually has them (with question marks if need be ) should be relevant for any article that uses the image , don't you think ? — kwami (talk) 04:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that a map indicating who posses CW is a good idea. I just personally find the skulls to be a bit much. Also, at least at my resolution, they are pretty much indecipherable because they're so small, some overlap more than one country, and I couldn't see the transparent ones. I'm trying to think of a better solution, but I haven't come up with anything yet aside from creating a second map. I think we should deal with at least three cases separately: confirmed and destroyed, confirmed and still posses, and suspected.

In an unrelated note, what is it you think needs clarification here? TDL (talk) 05:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

We don't say what it means , and a dictionary is no help. I only figured it out by reading the other articles , but that shouldn't be necessary .

Yes, visibility is a problem . — kwami (talk) 06:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for the buzzsaw approach, was mainly to get rid of some of the "HEY LOOK THIS HAPPENED" cruft that any NFL/CFL article brings (people really liked referencing Oronde Gadsen and that April Fools press release by Bob Young for some reason on every article that comes close). However, despite your good efforts, the whole thing is still just a complete mess, involving a borderline notable subject. Should we do a full re-write? The Bills info should mainly be on the Bills Toronto Series page, in my mind. Knoper (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that a lot of cruft needed to go. I tried to only restore the stuff that I felt was useful, while leaving all the "Oronde Gadsen" grade crap out. Personally, I'm leaning the opposite way. I think the best solution might be to merge Bills Toronto Series into NFL in Toronto. There is significant overlap between the two articles, and the subjects are so closely intertwined that I think it is hard to separate the two. A combined article would probably be <50kb so there's no WP:SIZERULE reason why they need to be split. I see this has been proposed once before and didn't get any traction, but if you're onside then maybe I will make a new proposal. What do you think? TDL (talk) 04:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Great idea. Message me when you want to pursue it. Knoper (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your interest in the Bangsamoro article. Do you think that you might find some time to research (library research) some of the points in the article that do not at present have inline citations to reliable sources? Thanks in advance. --Bejnar (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I don't think the article is necessary as it's just a WP:CFORK. The best solution is probably to merge any content that can be sourced to Bangsamoro Republik, Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, Bangsamoro (political entity), Moro people, Peace process with the Bangsamoro in the Philippines or Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro and make the page a disambiguation page. What do you think? TDL (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Naismith Cup, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hamilton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

— Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of discussing something extremely minute: the website where the announcement is placed on says: "The official web site of the Norwegian Nobel Committee is administered by the Norwegian Nobel Institute.". I agree it might not be the official award citation; but this gives us enough ground to assume it is the opinion of the committee, as it is on their official website…. And the Nobel foundation has nothing to do with it….L.tak (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, where do you see that? When I click "About us" on the linked article I get the following quote: "Nobelprize.org (http://www.nobelprize.org) is a registered trademark, and is produced, managed and maintained by Nobel Media. Nobel Media AB is a Swedish corporate entity and subsidiary of the Nobel Foundation Rights Association, a non-profit association managing the rights of the Nobel Foundation." Perhaps the better solution is to just use the official citation "for its extensive efforts to eliminate chemical weapons." TDL (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

At the site of the Norwegians: http://nobelpeaceprize.org… L.tak (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, so I see that the article that we currently link to on the Foundation's website is also available on the Committee's website. I was arguing for the Foundation because that was what the source that you linked to says, but since it is also available elsewhere it is a bit more ambiguous about who actually wrote it.

I just found a report from the BBC which attributes the quotes directly to Thorbjørn Jagland, so let's just give his name. TDL (talk) 22:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I've added his name to both articles. Does this work for you? TDL (talk) 22:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

It certainly does; thanks for finding that source! L.tak (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with avoiding WP:WEASEL words, but I do not understand the idea that the word "most" is subjective, it's a very plain word. When dealing with numbers, "most" means "the greatest number". When there are only two possibilities, most must mean "more than half". I am wondering, do you understand it differently? Moonraker (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I think there's some ambiguity to the word. "most" doesn't necessarily imply simply "more than half". See here for example which gives one definition as "a great majority of; nearly all." That is the sense of the word that I was referring to.

Regardless, creating a separate category for states that have significant recognition has been discussed in the past and there was pretty strong consensus against it. See Talk:List_of_states_with_limited_recognition/Archive_6#Recommended_category_split. However, that was a while ago so feel free to revisit the issue on the talk page to see if consensus has changed. TDL (talk) 06:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Please see here Regards IJA (talk) 00:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Republic of Kosovo". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 00:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help in the Republic of Kosovo dispute, particularly in finding relevant sources! Looks like it's finally over, thank goodness - hopefully the compromise will last! Neljack (talk) 06:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Quite honestly, I'm a bit shocked that DR resolved the issue that easily. Next problem is this... TDL (talk) 20:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I was surprised too. I've commented on the Taiwan discussion. I doubt these are the only articles where there are problematic uses of the term "state", but I really don't have the time or the energy to go through and try to fix them all right now. Neljack (talk) 10:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I abandoned the Taiwan discussion a month ago when it was clear that there was a backlash against any changes and I didn't want to waste my time on it. However, with the success of finding a neutral solution for Kosovo, I'm contemplating revisiting the issue with a RfC. TDL (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It's always a minefield when there are nationalistic issues involved. Hopefully an RfC would attract some uninvolved editors without nationalistic biases. Neljack (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ukraine–European Union relations may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• for the signing of the association agreement, planned for 29 November 2013.<ref name=FuleIU201113/>) the next day.<ref name=FuleIU201113/>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The use of American to mean "a person from the Americas" is racist/colonialist. That's entirely relevant to the content of the article, because the article should not be used as a soapbox to advocate such a position (but nor can we condemn it) - it's simply Neutral Point of View. It's not a personal attack, because it's not directed at you. It's a discussion of the term, and why attempts to use to article to push the view that it's the sole term, rather than one of several (and indeed, one sources note is rarely used). If you don't want me to describe the position you're pushing as colonialist/racist, stop pushing a position that's colonialist/racist. If you don't want me to describe you as a colonialist/racist - congratulations: I haven't, and won't. (Oh, and as for civility, wikilinking WP:BLOCK to someone with a few blocks in his log is a bit patronising ;) ). Cheers, WilyD 08:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ukraine–European Union relations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ukrainian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Richard Peddie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Basketball League (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited National Football League in Toronto, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WFL (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Right. But none of the countries issue Euros. Only the European Central Bank does. Andorra has been using Euros since inception as they have never had an official currency. Currently, they have been using them officially since July 2013 and therefore are in line with all of the other micro states. They also have a right to issue Euro COINS but have not yet minted or issued them as there was a delay in getting them minted. They are still Euro users and the answer is YES! on the chart. I sincerely hope this clears up the issue at hand. ~Julien~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julien Houle (talk • contribs) 19:58, 8 January 2014 P.S. There is no such thing as "partially using the Euro", the country either has rights or uses unilaterally. As a matter of fact then, Andorra cannot issue Euros, only the ECB. Briefzehn 00:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)(UTC) Briefzehn

Your claim that "none of the countries issue Euros" is incorrect, and is contradicted by Andorra's monetary agreement which explicitly grants Andorra: "The right to issue euro coins".

Yes, Andorra was previously using the euro unofficially, but they were officially granted usage rights as of April 2012 (when the MA came into force), not July 2013. All that happened in July 2013 was that they were granted the right to issue euros, subject to certain conditions. There have been delays in trying to meet these conditions. Once they meet the conditions and actually issue euros, then they will be in line with the rest of the microstates and it would make sense to colour them green. But as of now, they aren't quite there. Prior to them getting usage rights, they were coloured blue (like Kosovo and Montenegro). Now that they have usage rights but can't yet issue euros, they are coloured yellow. Once they issue euros like the rest of the green states, they should be coloured green. Every other green state issues their own euros; I don't see why we should make an exemption for Andorra.

As I mentioned in my edit summary, lots of places are official euro users. For instance, the UK's Akrotiri and Dhekelia are official euro users. Should we colour the UK green because they officially have the right to use the euro in their territory? I don't believe so. Green should be reserved for states which actually issue their own euros.

Also, I never said they were "partially using the Euro". What I actually said was that they were "they're only partially participating in the eurozone" because they don't issue their own euros. Their situation now is analogous to Akrotiri and Dhekelia/Mayotte/Saint Pierre and Miquelon/French Southern and Antarctic Lands/Saint-Barthélemy (users but not issuers) not the microstates, which are BOTH users and issuers. Hopefully Andorra issues their euros soon so this issue will be resolved. TDL (talk) 04:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Not arguing against your revert on European Union, as EU is clearer than Europe, but I'm surprised you imply that you haven't heard anyone refer to the EU as "Europe". In my experience, it's quite a common occurrence. It's tends not to be confusing either, as the meaning is always clear from context. I reckon it's exactly what must've happened to the United States, where "America" came into common usage as a shortform name, displacing the other candidates. CMD (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've definitely seen it used colloquially to allude to the EU, but I've always just taken it as a figure of speech and not a literal name for the EU. For example, in the sentence "Downing Street and William Hague have experienced a rare moment of unity with Nick Clegg on Europe" the author is clearly referring specifically to the EU, but if the sentence read "Downing Street and William Hague have experienced a rare moment of unity with Nick Clegg on the Continent/Brussels" (both [equally?] common figures of speech), to me it would have the exact same meaning, it just utilizes different features to identify the EU. I'm not sure that makes "the Continent" or "Brussels" a synonym for the EU, rather than just a metonymy. (I admit had too look up that word!) I suppose the counterargument is that if the figure of speech is used frequently enough, it aquires a new meaning which transcends its original definition and becomes a name. This suggests that that is what has happened in British usage, so it probably comes down to an engvar issue. (As for America, your pseudoetymology sounds plausible, but after this discussion I've had quite enough of that subject!) TDL (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar Dan! It's nice to have a non-bot show up on my talk page and I'm glad the effort on the Argonauts article was appreciated.

Speaking of books, I just got The Argo Bounce in the mail last night. In fact, when you wrote, I was about to dig back into the article with new factoids. (Did you know that Harry Sonshine fired all thirteen imports on the Argos at once in 1954?!) I stopped myself, however, because too much detail can overburden and over-lengthen an article. I'll probably just add little bits and pieces going forward. The main task will be a History of the Toronto Argonauts. I'd like to have this companion article in shape before an FA nom to provide a target for any concerns over too much or too little coverage. When I have it in my sandbox, I'll give you the link.

"I've got digital access to numerous newspaper archives..." Do you really have the Globe back to 1844? Off the top of my head, I'm thinking it would be super-cool to quote the Globe and/or Daily Mail in the days after the first game of October 18, 1973 if you can find it. Both the papers apparently covered the game. Dontreadalone (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and do you actually prefer to be addressed as Dan or TDL? Dontreadalone (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Dan works for me, though I'm not particularly fussy either way. And you earned that barnstar for all your hard work on the article!

I can't say I've actually tested it all the way back to 1844 (and some of the reproductions of older papers are quite poor), but the articles are fully indexed and searchable, so I should be able to find something from 1873. (I'm currently in the midst of a "sever weather event" that's knocked out my power at home, limiting my access to the internet, so it might take me a few days to get around to it depending on when that gets resolved.) TDL (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Just did a quick search and found an article from October 21 in the Globe describing the game. The entire article (except for the team rosters) is reproduced in this interesting article. TDL (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Woot. That Coffin Corner piece is a find. In fact, my Double Blue book is actually relying on that article for info on the first game but I hadn't encountered it directly.

The Daily Mail summary is short and sweet. I think it would look good as a block quote at the beginning of the first history section. Thanks! Dontreadalone (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

A bit of a change of heart. I mocked up a preliminary ToC for a "History of..." article here. Staring it occurred to me that that project alone could take a couple of months. While it would be nice to have that done prior to nominating the main article for FA I don't think it essential.

Long story short, I think we should just polish this sucker up and send it off. There's date formats and that kind of thing to be done and I still want to finish The Argo Bounce. It would also be really nice if a totally independent editor could look over the copy. But all in all, it's pretty close. Dontreadalone (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that a "History of ..." article would be a big job: 140 years is a lot of history! (At least by Canadian standards...)

I'll try to give it a good copyedit/review on the weekend. Maybe the best thing to do is start an itemized list of open issues that should be addressed with relation to WP:WIAGA/WP:WIAFA on the talk page. Once we're happy with it, it would probably be worth soliciting outside opinions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian football. TDL (talk) 03:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Toronto Argonauts, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hamilton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Did you write and ref this whole list yourself? That's exceptional! How great to stumble across something properly referenced. I'm stealing the American games to add to the newly moved Canadian Football League in the United States. Dontreadalone (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I see you don't actually want to fork anything out. I really think it would be acceptable use within the FORK guideline: "Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork."

What do you say about just copying the American info from your list? Dontreadalone (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Ha, well technically I think I stole the table from 2013 Hamilton Tiger-Cats season, so that was a start! But the referencing and the rest of the games was me. It took a while, but as you've probably noticed I prefer working on tables/maps/citations/etc. over writing real content...

Actually, I just took a look at User:Dontreadalone/sandbox and there weren't nearly as many games in the USA as I had recalled. Not that many more than Touchdown Atlantic, which I already split out. So yeah I suppose you have a point that it's reasonable to repeat them on CFL in the United States. And as an added bonus, if you're planning to write some content to go along with the table we could back-fork it to the full list. With a bit more prose (and a little beautifying), I don't think it would be too hard to get it up to WP:FL (which doesn't have nearly as bad a backlog). The list itself is effectively complete, and other FL such as this have very little prose. TDL (talk) 01:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I totally thought of FL when I realized how well referenced it was—and that was before I knew you'd written it. It just needs a few paragraphs of contextualization. Definitely something to get done. I can go through the referencing and write an intro based on what's already there, if you want.

User:Knoper has posted a concern that the CFL in the United States would still be better off focused only on the expansion years. I can see his point and am ambivalent. Please weigh in when you can. Dontreadalone (talk) 05:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you offer some advice here on the best form of map that can be easily made for our American expansion article? I know zilch about what's easiest. Dontreadalone (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

(o/d) Chicago Cardinals-Toronto Argonauts exhibition game. A new one for you to look over. I've sprinkled it in to some of the articles we've been editing. Hoping to take it to DYK. Dontreadalone (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks good! I linked it from a few more articles (while copying over some of your text) and made a few minor changes. TDL (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

A pretty basic question that I haven't asked you yet: how are you sure that you've got all the possible games in your list? Does the CFL maintain a list somewhere? Dontreadalone (talk) 02:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I can't say I've found them all. What I did was went through every city here. Though I'm certain that this didn't exist back them, so it might be worth checking again for updates. TDL (talk) 03:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, would you care to help Danish Expert, if he wants, to update the euro convergence criteria and the fiscal compact's fiscal compliance tables with newer data from official reports? Heracletus (talk) 03:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Are there new convergence reports available? I don't expect a new ECB report until May. (Last year's report dealt exclusively with Latvia to assess its readiness to adopt the euro.) The Fiscal Compact compliance definitely needs to be updated with the autumn forcast. I'm certainly willing to help out with the update effort.

PS: Thanks for fixing all the WP:BAREURLs on Unified Patent Court and European Fiscal Compact. I know it's tedious work, but it looks much better now! TDL (talk) 07:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, the last convergence report was on June 2013, and was up to and including April 2013. For some reason, the template here is up to and including March. And, of course, has different reference values than the convergence report.

However, and as I first made a comment on Danish Expert's talk page, and you had not noticed this variation before, please don't argue again. Just update it if you both agree that it could and should be updated. Otherwise, it can wait some months till this year's convergence report.

About the Fiscal Compact, yes, I was referring to the autumn report and/or the forthcoming one, along with the section below that table with some of Danish Expert's contributions. I was hoping and still do that this year we may be able to agree on how to formulate that whole section. Again, I don't support unilateral actions, as I am the one bringing this up. I do support Danish Expert taking an/the initiative, while also consulting with other editors of the page.

I have noticed that he (I think he's male) has refrained from contributing on the euro articles for some time now, and I don't think anyone's intention was to make him feel unwelcome or drive him away, as long as he exercised some self control and talked with the other editors before adding up too much information, which may or may not have been of value.

I do hope we could find a way to make this work out. Would you perhaps want to talk to him about co-operating on updating these tables? Heracletus (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but as I said above the June 2013 convergence report only covered Latvia. See for yourself here. (Compare this with the 2012 Report which covered all the states.) The reports are only prepared every other year, but states can request an extra report if they think they can qualify for euro adaption. Latvia requested a report last year, hence the Latvia-only June 2013 report. As far as I can tell, the numbers on Template:Euro convergence criteria are based on Danish Expert's personal calculations. You can see the template I created with data from the 2013 report at Template:Euro convergence criteria (2013).

I'll drop DE a note within the next few days about updating the Fiscal Compact table. TDL (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The reference data would be the same for all countries, though. I mean the reference values in the criteria. So, the reference values in Template:Euro convergence criteria (2013) should be the same as the ones in the general template... I mean, the reference values, i.e. criteria are the same for everyone, even if it was only checked if Latvia fulfills them. I think this is obvious.

As far as I remember, the argument with Danish Expert was about these values... So, well, since the 2013 criteria values are newer than the ones included in the Template:Euro convergence criteria and more formal, we could replace them. Then, we should also update each country's current values, as these are published monthly, as far as I remember.

What I overall suggest is this: Keep and make templates per 2 (or 1) years as "Euro convergence criteria (year)" with all the official values (for criteria and per country), while keeping the general|"Euro convergence criteria" template updated to last 2 (or 1) years' official reference values and the latest published statistics per country each month or year. I suggest this if there is some notability in keeping old criteria and country values, otherwise, keep only the general "Euro convergence criteria" updated to last 2 (or 1) years' official reference values and the latest published statistics per country; and include any relevant tables for euro accession, fulfilling the criteria, in each country's euro article. Heracletus (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I saw for example how the 2012 template was used here: Hungary and the euro#ERM-II membership, so, perhaps, we could agree to keep the last two (or 3 or whatever else number you may suggest) official reports or criteria references, just to indicate how close a country currently is or was to being able to join the eurozone? Following this approach, however, perhaps, it would be better to make templates per country, rather than per year? Heracletus (talk) 14:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, so you're suggesting that we use the 2013 ECB report for the reference values and eurostat for the country specific values? It's always dangerous to use different data sets to draw conclusions. The ECB and eurostat seem to use different methodologies and consequently arrive at different results. For example, the ECB concluded that Latvia's 2012 deficit was 1.2%, while eurostat says 1.3%. Though as long as we include some sort of disclaimer about this it's probably a good estimate of compliance.

I think that the ECB report figures are significant enough to be retained (at least for the still-converging states). In fact, I think it would be nice to create tables for the old reports back to pre-1999 to show for example Greece's convergence on Greek euro coins. But that would be a lot of work... In general, I agree with your plan for annual templates. That's actually what I've been doing: 2013, 2012. But I guess my question is what to do with the general template. The issue is that we have updated country-specific values but no updated reference values. Is it really meaningful to compare an April 2013 reference value with a January 2014 country specific value? I'm not sure it is. If we decided that it's not, then making the general template a redirect to the most recent annual template is probably the best alternative. TDL (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, after thinking about it why don't we just scrap the reference values entirely from the general template? They are already included in the annual templates. That way, Hungary could have the following rows: 2012 ECB references; 2012 ECB Hungary; 2013 ECB reference; 2013 eurostat Hungary; current eurostat Hungary. That way we don't have to draw conclusions on whether the current values meet the criteria, but we can still provided the most up to date data so readers can see the trends. TDL (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I get your point. I agree with your 20:32 comment, that "making the general template a redirect to the most recent annual template is the best alternative" if we can not agree to use a second-hand reference for the monthly calculation of the reference values. In last years discussion we had about the reference values for Latvia, I was able to dig up monthly calculations of the "ECB reference values" performed by the Polish Ministry of Finance. My suggestion however goes, that while acknowledging its only a second-hand source, it is still good enough to actually being used as a source for the reported reference values for the "Euro convergence table". They perform the same calculation approach and method, being used by ECB, although there it is true that from time to time they might arrive at different results if some of the countries are considered as outliers by ECB - while for unknown reasons not being treated as outliers by the Polish Ministry of Finance. But as long as we make a short note for this in the table, I think its acceptable enough to use the "Polish source" for the contemporary data (the current table), and then of course only the "ECB source" for the "archived" yearly tables. Danish Expert (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

For the moment, I am unfortunately out of time to update the Euro convergence table and "Fiscal compact article", Heracletus have asked us to help update. I am involved in a big project -due in April 2014- that eat up all my time. I expect to be back as an active editor on the two article chapters: around May 2014. In both cases it will also coincide with EC's spring forecast report and the new ECB convergence report, so I guess there will be plenty of update work at that time around. I think it is okay to wait with the update work of the "Fiscal compact" article until May 2014. In regards of updating the euro "convergence table 2013", I agree with Heracletus that this should be created ASAP. In regards of the values, I can reveal ECB and Eurostat are using the exact same method. So its perfectly OK to compare "ECB reference values" with "Eurostat HICP+Interest rate" figures, while in regards of the "budget deficit figures" it is importan only to use the 2012 budget deficit figures reported by the "EC spring forecast report 2013" (because these figures are 100% identical with the figures ECB refers to when they make their evaluation in May 2013 - they are using and referring to the same "source data"). If you do not have time to create it now, I can help out create it in May 2014. But if you have time, please go ahead. :-) Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, I forgot about that Polish source! If we can get up to date estimates of the reference values from them, then that would be a relevant comparison for the eurostat data (provided there is some note as you suggest) so I'd support that. I'll see what I can dig up over the next few days.

And I think I see part of my confusion with the eurostat/ECB comparison. The eurostat data is measured after the fact rather than the projections used by the ECB/Commission forecast for the current year. But even if I look at the 2012 ECB Report for Latvia's 2010 deficit (-8.2%) versus eurostat (-8.1%) there is still a discrepancy. Any idea why the ECB report doesn't use the eurostat data for PAST years?

I guess this raises another issue as well in that, as I understand it, both the previous year's measured and next year's projected debt/deficit must be less than the reference values to qualify. At least that's what I get from reading: "3% for the ratio of the planned or actual government deficit to gross domestic product at market prices". Maybe we should have both listed? TDL (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

About the data discrepancy, the point is that the Eurostat data you look at is the latest revised data as per 8.jan.2014, while the published 2012 ECB report display the historic data as how they had been recorded per May 2012. This is why we have discrepancy, because all historic GDP and budget deficits are continuously revised (partly because of better data calculations, and some slightly revised calculation principles implemented by ESA95). In example UK's statistical agency on 20 Dec.2013 published some new revised GDP growth figures for their Q4-2011 to Q2-2012 double-dip recession, and this slightly also impact the budget deficit in percentage of GDP. Not much, and usually the revised historic data only moves by a single one-digit. In any case, the ECB assessment criteria is very clear. The point is, that in order to pass the "budget deficit criteria" and associated "debt-to-GDP ratio criteria", it simply comes to down to the point, whether or not you have an open EDP, which is a joint decision by the European Commission and ECOFIN council to make (both in regards of "opening an EDP" and eventually "abrogating the EDP"). The current version of the Stability and Growth Pact, has outlined the limits and rules. If the "Fiscal Compact" at one point of time becomes integrated into the SGP regulations (as Germany proposed), then the convergence criteria for "budget deficits" will introduce "structural budget deficits" as the main budget criteria in the future. The ECB assessment procedure is also clear, they are told always to make all their convergence assessments on basis of the latest available data from Eurostat. So this is why we need to reference with "published old figures" rather than to "dynamic constantly revised databases" for our old historic data-tables. As far as I remember, this is also exactly how we have done it so far (only using the database references for the "current table", and then published sources for "historic tables").

To make a long reply short, then for the historic 2013 convergence criteria table published in May 2013, the ECB reference values can be sourced by the 2013 ECB convergence report itself, while the HICP+interest rates for April 2013 can be sourced by the databases (based on the presumption interest rates are never revised, and HICPs very seldom revised), while the 2012 budget deficits + debt-to-GDP figures (as assessed per May 2013) needs to be referenced by the figures extracted from the EC spring forecast report (May 2013). In regards of Latvia's historic budget deficit value for 2010, this is also only correct to asses (for euro convergence criteria purpuposes) based upon the EC spring forecast report (May 2011), where it at that point of time was published to be 8.6% for 2010. Danish Expert (talk) 11:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct, that to comply with both the "budget deficit criteria" and "debt-to-GDP ratio criteria", this needs to happen both towards the "latest fiscal year" and for the "current fiscal year" and the "following fiscal year". To say it short, this is assessed based upon the EC forecast reports (published 3 times per year: Feb+May+Nov), where the latest report is being used at the calendar month where the country is assessed. To be strictly correct, it would be good if the euro convergence criteria table also reflect this additional point. I think the reason why it doesn't, is because of the attempt to simplify the table a bit. An idea where we do not jeopardize the readibaility of the table - but still kick in these additional figures - could perhaps be, if we for both under the "budget deficit column" and "debt-to-GDP ratio column" introduce 3 subdivided "colored cells" for each country to display the figures for "recorded year" + "forecasted current year" + "forecasted next year". If its not too hard to write the code for this, such an improvement would be great. :-) Danish Expert (talk) 11:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the clarification! That explains why I couldn't figure out what was going on. I'll see if I can come up with some way to display three debt/deficit rows without compromising the readability of the table. TDL (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I can say that I support templates per country for each country's euro article, and then perhaps a template with all the countries but only for the current year or past year for the convergence criteria article and other articles needing the current data. This would also mean renaming Greek euro coins into Greece and the euro and so on. Now, about which data to use and why they differ, I cannot say I know or have an opinion on it. Heracletus (talk) 03:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I rewrote the template a while back so that it can be used on both the country pages and the convergence criteria article. It's smart enough to know what data to display. So I think the simplest solutions is a template for each ECB report (displayed only on the country pages) and a general one with the most recent data (displayed on the convergence criteria article). I'll start a thread at Template_talk:Euro convergence criteria with a To Do list for updating when I get a chance.

And yes, I'd support the renaming of the euro coin articles to more general titles. TDL (talk) 06:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)