User talk:Davewild

• Archive October 2005-September 2007
• Archive October 2007-February 2008
• Archive March 2008-July 2008
• Archive August 2008-February 2009
• Archive March 2009-November 2009
• Archive December 2009-July 2010
• Archive August 2010-May 2011

MfD nomination of User:Tlogmer/Captain Obvious

User:Tlogmer/Captain Obvious, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tlogmer/Captain Obvious and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Tlogmer/Captain Obvious during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Anthem 16:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Maps for London

Hi, I've uploaded the full set of blank maps for London now - see commons:User:Nilfanion/Maps/Requests#London borough maps. Glad to see you are gradually getting through the local elections maps too. :)--Nilfanion (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Adur

The Parish by-election had significant local coverage and it is the only one held in years. Also if you look on the Shoreham beach RA site it lists them as "their" councillors. Also the adur website lists them as independent (Shoreham beach Residents). The only reason the ballot paper says independent is because they are not a registered political party. Also why are you opposed to greater accuracy on the results and more comprehansive results.--95.147.54.95 (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks you for replying. I am opposed to including a parish by-election in the middle of district council by-elections giving a very misleading impression that this is another district by-election and making the parish by-election seem as important as the district by-elections. If you want to try and create a page on the parish council then that could be relevant for that page but not for a page on the elections to the district council. If you check any other page on local elections in the UK you will find that none of them include parish by-elections because quite simply they are not as important and they are not what these pages on district, borough, county and metropolitan elections are about.

Secondly the council page on the by-election - http://www.adur.gov.uk/docs/elections/2005-may/election-results-2005-05-05-adc-marine-ward.pdf - makes no mention at all of Keith Fayers-Morrisey being Shoreham Beach Residents Association at the time of the by-election. Could you point to where on the council website (or indeed on the Shoreham Beach Residents Association website) it says that Keith Fayers-Morrisey stood in that by-election for the Shoreham Beach Residents Association. I cannot find anywhere on the council website any mention of Keith Fayers-Morrisey apart from in the by-election result. The only mention of Keith Fayers-Morrisey on the Shoreham Beach Residents Association website I can find is that he is as of now currently treasurer of the association with no mention of him previously being a councillor for the association.

The core Wikipedia policy is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which I suggest you have a look at. This includes the principle of "verifiability, not truth". Unless you produce reliable sources showing that Keith Fayers-Morrisey was standing in the by-election for the Shoreham Beach Residents Association, we have to follow the sources such as here and here that describe him as an independent. Davewild (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hi Dave,

I would like to promote Nemrud's wikipedia page but regarding the discussion you had already got one. I read whole discussions (Jan.2011). It turned out to be the band during the course of the past few months bands performance was televised on wellknown Turkish TV channels like TRT, CNNTurk and Dream TV. On top of this, their music and interviews with band members were also broadcasted on American, English and French radios. album "the Journey of the Shaman" is being sold all over the world under one of the most famous progressive rock record companies; Musea Records. So,should I recreate the page or may I edit the older one? Because I need to add some ather things to the page. Could you please help?

Thanks,

Irmala (talk) 11:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, First off if your aim is to promote the band Nemrud then I must tell you not to do so. Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view and strongly discourages writing articles where you have a conflict of interest.

If you don't have a conflict of interest and want to write a neutral article based on reliable secondary sources then you can do so but you must address the concern from the original Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nemrud, which was that the article did not meet the notability guideline for music groups. I would advise starting afresh as the original article had little or no useful content, but I could userfy the original article if you think it would be useful.

However I should warn you that if you rewrite the article and you do not show how it meets the notability guideline, addressing the problem raised in the original AFD, it is likely to be speedily deleted. Davewild (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dave,

Thank you very much for your quick reply.

I want to recreate Nemrud's page. But I am unfamiliar with wikipedia. It seems so complicated to me. Is it an easier way to edit the old one. What do you think about making a correction?

Thanks,

Irem

Irmala (talk) 07:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said above there is little to nothing in the original article that is worth using in a proper article. Therefore I would strongly recommend starting again if you think an article can meet the notability guideline, if you need advice on doing so then you can have a look at Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:Article wizard which will provide help on creating articles. If you want a second opinion on whether the original article is worth using then you can take it to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion and ask for the article to be userfied from there. Davewild (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Milan Lalkovič

Hi, on 14 February 2011 you deleted page of football young player Milan Lalkovič. But now, he already played official football match for Doncaster Rovers where is he already on loan from Chelsea. See http://www.skysports.com/football/match_facts/0,,11065_3407294,00.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filip289 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the history so it is available for if you want to use it and added a reference to verify that he has now made his debut. Davewild (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Additional maps

I know you've been doing very useful work creating local election result maps from my blanks. In case you haven't noticed, there's also blanks for the shire county councils - File:Norfolk UK electoral division map (blank).svg could be used for Norfolk Council election, 2009 and so on.

I have a question though - Do you think there might be benefit in maps of wider areas? For example, I'm tempted to create a map like File:English districts 2010.svg to show all electoral wards in England.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

There's a lot of blanks on Commons (but I could probably categorise them a bit better). My main "catalog" is at commons:User:Nilfanion/Maps, and if you look at the table at commons:User:Nilfanion/Maps/England, you'll can find <district, parish, electoral division, electoral ward and westminster constituency> in <ceremonial county> maps for almost everything.

The constituency in county is possibly most useful after the council base maps, as the politics sections of the county articles do mention parliamentary representation.

Yeah, the England-wide map would be a lot of effort. I'm tempted to put mixed wards as no overall control as opposed to worrying about stripes, but its still thousands of points. I'll have a look at it and let you know if/when I'm done.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Good man on the Preston maps Dave. I was considering about thinking about doing them, and you've made a much quicker job than I would :) Cheers doktorb wordsdeeds 22:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem and thanks. Davewild (talk) 06:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Zelda Chaos

• 16:15, 1 October 2011 Davewild (talk | contribs) deleted "Zelda Chaos" ‎ (A7: Article about a web site, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

Hey Dave, please could you justify this deletion. I'm, sorry I forgot to add in that Zelda Chaos aims to be the top resource for Zelda glitches on the net and to my knowledge it is. I hope this gives you a reason to stick the page back online. Oh and just a quick question about Wikipedia, aren't encyclopaedias supposed to be omniscient whether the things in them are important or not? Regards, Curlyw42 (talk) 18:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Wikipedia requires articles to meet notability guidelines in order to not be deleted. The relevant notability for websites is here - Wikipedia:Notability (web) - and basically requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources and/or to have a won a major independent award. Without such coverage articles are liable to be deleted.

Wikipedia has also got criteria where articles may be immediately deleted here - Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion - and this requires websites to have a credible assertion of wider significance or importance, which I am sorry to say the Zelda Chaos article did not have and just being the top resource for Zelda glitches on the web is not sufficient to meet this. This is a lower standard than the notability guideline and an article is likely still to be deleted for not meeting the notability guideline, even if it avoids speedy deletion.

However you are welcome to recreate an article on Zelda Chaos if you can show how it will meet the notability guideline for websites. Davewild (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Portsdown

I was going to create a redir from Portsdown to Portsdown Hill (to fix redlink at Defence Research Agency), but I see Portsdown has been deleted. Can you explain why ? DexDor (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to create such a redirect. The original content at Portsdown was a copyright violation, which was subsequently blanked by the only author and as such was deleted back in 2009. This has nothing to do with any redirect being created now under the same name, which seems to be a sensible move. Davewild (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Acanthophlebia

Yes it is a valid reason and always has been. Please read Junior homonym, Principle of priority, International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and perhaps Nomen illegitimum to understand why.

Briefly, to use the word "Acanthophlebia" for this moth violates the rules of biological nomenclature, and Wikipedia accepts these rules as binding (like it uses SI units, IUPAC names etc). In plain English, "Acanthophlebia" is not permitted to refer to this moth. It is not a legitimate use of this word. The name is officially condemned.

The redirect at Acanthophlebia was only created due to editor error. It cannot be changed to redirect to Leptophlebiidae, because this would violate WP:R#Self-redirects and WP:R#DELETE #10.

There is no point in RfD. To argue for keeping the redirect, one must claim that the principle of priority is null and void; this claim violates WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, and hence it is impermissible.

Since no claim to keep as is can be made without violating core rules of Wikipedia, speedy deletion. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion should only take place when the limited criteria specified on the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion page are met and for redirects in particular the criteria here. This redirect does not meet either of those criteria so should not be speedy deleted. I am not saying that the redirect is correct or that it should not be deleted, just that the correct place for any redirects that need deleting that do not meet the deliberately very limited speedy deletion criteria is Wikipedia:Redirects for Discussion. Davewild (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

inre The Worst Movie Ever!

As you've welcomed a possible return to AFD of the Glenn Berggoetz article, how about I simply perform a partial merge of his article to the film article and then redirect it? I think being a bit bold now could prevent wasting another few weeks of AFD in the future, and won't reflect negatively on a possible reversion of the redirect if or when Berggoetz gains more notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to do this, it looks good to me. I don't think the AFD can really say much about the outcome for the Glenn Berggoetz article and this seems to be a sensible merge at this time. Davewild (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

As I started,[1] I actually began finding sources not in the Berggoetz article that address the filmmaker directly and in detail... like this one published last June. A redirect is still on my mind, but I'll take a crack at improving it first... as another way to avoid a (perhaps unneccessary) repeat AFD. Thanks much, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Karl Koch (musician)

Hi, would you userfy, please? I want to see if anything is mergeable to Weezer. Best, Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Done, it can be found at User:Bridgeplayer/Karl Koch (musician). Davewild (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks!:-) Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

treatment to new users

Iron law of oligarchy You are welcomed to read this article, and understand what you do. You just took some very motivated new wikipedia users, and completly ruined their motivation. Instead of trying to explain and help us improve the article, you just led the line of deleting it, after hours of hard work. Thanks to your nice nick name I guess I will never really know who you are, but I'm sure that once you were a young editor yourself, and you hoped that the veterens will help you develop. So we tried to add relevant sources. We added some articles from the official website of one of the biggest universities in Israel, but that wasn't enough for you. And we added articles from the biggest local newspaper in the 3rd biggest city in Israel, and it still wasn't enough for you. So we added an article in an Arab web-site and again it wasn't enough. And the same with an article from the biggest newspaper in Limburg region in the Netherland. So the direct conclusion is that if it dosen't happen in English- it just dosen't happen... So I hope you are proud of yourself as the big bully of the wiki-world... --Sefishalem (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

This guy is a deletionist. -- A — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.85.102.100 (talk) 11:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• I received a copy of the same spammy soapboxing rant, above, via email, Davewild. At least, apparently, we're 'veterens' (sic). I suggest, like me, you disregard it and just go edit something instead of wasting time on this copypasta nonsense. Best,  Chzz  ►  01:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that language is overly harsh. There was probably some self-promotion of the student org involved, but it seems they tried in good faith to show that their organization was WP:notable; describing the OP here as a "spammy soapboxing rant" is unjustified in my view. Uʔ (talk) 10:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I could respond to it, unfortunately 6 years down the line I have had similar said to me before. I will always try and help if I can, but it does not look like that would be any good here. Davewild (talk) 07:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Expired Prod

Anthony Delasco is an expired prod --Vic49 (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted it, but another admin would have got to it soon. Davewild (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Public achievement (U.S. civic scheme)

Hello. You recently moved Public Achievement but Talk:Public achievement (U.S. civic scheme) was inadvertently left behind. Please match it to the article when you have a chance. Thanks. Station1 (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, missed it when I did the move earlier. Done now. Davewild (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

That was quick!! Thanks. Station1 (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Asset based welfare

Hello.

You deleted an article Asset based welfare yesterday. This is a topic that is targeted for improvement by a group of Indian economics graduate students. May I ask you to undo that deletion on Don't Bite the Noobs grounds, please?

See: Wikipedia:India Education Program/Students. Thanks. Carrite (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I would be fine with restoring it myself, but am concerned that it would be quickly re-deleted by another admin as it just had one sentence "Asset based welfare develops an asset based approach to poverty analysis." Would userfying it to User:Mailgkhandelwal/Asset based welfare be ok as an alternative to avoid it getting re-deleted? Davewild (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

That would definitely be fine. I'm not an administrator and can't see deleted material. I think the guy already has a sandbox set up. If you could leave him a note and clue him on what is going on, that would be appreciated. Thanks! Carrite (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I have userfied the article and dropped a note on the talk page to let him know what has been done. Davewild (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Asset Based Welfare

Hi. I had created the article "Asset Based Welfare". It was only one sentence and I intend to continue it further. I'll surely consider your suggestion of using my sand box now. So now I'll post my article only once its ready. Thank You. Mailgkhandelwal (talk) 03:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Hello Davewild! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 21:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Davewild (talk) 07:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ian Smith (minister)

I have a query about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Smith (minister). I think the way you phrased your closing comments was ambiguous. You said that "there is sufficient consensus that the claims to meeting WP:PROF are insufficient in this case to establish notability." Does that mean that there was consensus that he did not meet WP:PROF, or that meeting WP:PROF is insufficient to establish notability? I ask because a few people in the discussion seemed to have a low view of WP:PROF (E.g. "WP:PROF is, as written, overbroad", "Suggest changing the notes on wp:PROF 6", etc.) and your closing comments possibly hint that meeting WP:PROF is not good enough. StAnselm (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I've revised my closing comments because I can see how they could be seen as ambiguous. I hope they are now clear enough - I was not saying that meeting WP:PROF is insufficient to establish notability - no one AFD (or closing admin) could say that. My judgement is that consensus lay with those arguing that the institution was not major and that therefore WP:PROF was not met. The arguments that WP:PROF did not matter (such as by UninvitedCompany) were given lesser weight in the closure. Davewild (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. StAnselm (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Granville Automatic

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Granville Automatic. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 170.140.221.45 (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Not sure why you deleted, article meets notability criteria for bands and both members have their own notable wiki pages. Went through deletion review already and was kept, then you came and deleted.

AfD: Curt Mega

Several weeks ago I had a page deleted: Curt Mega due to non-notability. I have new information or the page that I believe will push this past the criteria. He recently sang a lead solo on the Fox TV Glee. The song is currently #15 on the topp 100 iTunes download. If properly sourced, would I be able to put the article back up with this information included and it not be deleted? Thank you 70.239.1.120 (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)mozartchic01

I don't think that is sufficient to meet the WP:MUSIC notability guideline, without which it would be redeleted. However I have userfied the article to User:Mozartchic01/Curt Mega so that you can work on it if you think you can improve it to meet the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 08:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion: TruConnect Mobile

I’d like discuss further the deletion of TruConnect Mobile, because I believe all of the references establish the subject’s significance as an organization meeting the needs of today’s consumers – in fact, it was even covered in TIME. Additionally, the article was written to include limited content in an effort to avoid coming across as advertising or marketing material. Please advise on how I can edit this article so that it can be reinstated. DJADave (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I deleted that article as it did not assert it's significance or importance. I have now userfied it to User:DJADave/TruConnect Mobile so that you can work on the article to establish notability per the relevant notability guideline. Once you have done that you can move it back to the article mainspace. Davewild (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I've updated the article to include additional references and edited text that I believe establish the company's notability. If so, can you please move the article back to the mainspace? If not, can you please advise on what my next step should be? DJADave (talk) 00:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I have moved it back to mainspace as requested as it does now assert significance and it has an arguable case for notability.. Davewild (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Dave, I saw you asking for removal of your admin right and I wanted to thank you for all your quality and quiet mopping over the last four years. Off2riorob (talk) 11:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Koryu Uchinadi Page deletion?

Dave,

Like to why you deleted our page describing Koryu Uchinadi?

If there's something we didn't know, or should have used to support the contribution, would you be kind enough to apprise me/us, at your earliest convenience?

Regards

Patrick McCarthy

Sorry I'm no longer an admin, but the reason is that consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koryu Uchinadi per the reasons expressed there. I see you have taken it to deletion review where others have agreed with the decision and explained further. Davewild (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Anton Singov article

Hi Dave,

Recently I noticed that the Wikipedia entry for "Anton Singov" has been deleted. After reading the discussion page it seems like there were both good and disputable reasons for deletion. One of reasons (lack of reliable sources) seems very reasonable to me, the reason that notability is not established is arguable. The article satisfies on point 1 of WP:ANYBIO. The subject of the article has consistently reached top3 and won several first places at the most notable international "electronic sports" competitions in the world such as Electronic Sports World Cup, Dreamhack, Quakecon, Intel Extreme Masters and World Cyber Games Russia. Look for the pseudonym "Cooller".

Would it be possible to restore the history so that the sources can be added?

Thanks in advance! Nieuwebezoeker (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Anton Singov

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Anton Singov. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Nieuwebezoeker (talk) 11:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I will let the contributors to the deletion review decide if the deletion was correct, but considering the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anton Singov consensus was clear that significant of this individual (not the topic but the individual) were not present so notability was not established. Davewild (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution

You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 11:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Template

Hey Dave - hope thee will. Do you think this looks alright?

doktorb _words^deeds 18:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Note to editors on how to manage collapsibility:

• Use {{Davewild|state=collapsed}} to show this template in its collapsed (hidden) state.
• Use {{Davewild|state=expanded}} to show this template in its expanded (fully visible) state.
• Use {{Davewild|state=autocollapse}} to show this template in its collapsed (hidden) state only if there is another template of the same type on the page. (This is usually the default.)

Category:United Kingdom election year templates

• Personally I prefer to keep it simpler as I have done at Template:Carlisle Council elections. I recognise your way is trying to give the reader more information, than my way which does not explain the situation, but I'm not convinced it is clearer. I'm hoping that people who are unsure will read the main Preston local elections or Carlisle local elections page and the election cycle will be explained there.
• Also I now think all the elections should be included, going back to the first election in 1973 (and this is what I have done for West Somerset and Carlisle). Having only the elections we have created from 1998 onwards could make the reader think elections to this council started in 1998, or there was some big change then. I personally will not be creating articles on elections before 1998 (for one thing I don't have records for virtually any before then), but it does not mean someone else in the future might, and there are councils, such as Manchester local elections, Wolverhampton local elections and Sheffield local elections where other people have already done this. This is a change from what I have previously been doing, but I think it is better than how I have been doing it.
• Finally, if kept, the wording on the notes might be a bit unclear - they might imply for instance that councillors elected in 2003 were then up for election in 2011, as well as 2007, when actually it is those elected in 2007 that were up for election in 2011. An alternative could be just to have two notes, one saying when the council was all up for election after boundary changes, as per a, and another just saying something on the lines of "council elected by thirds, with each councillor serving a 4 year term", but I can't think of a perfect wording that is clear and unambiguous.
• However that's just my opinion and sorry for being a bit negative. If the notes are kept in the template (and feel free to ignore my above opinions if you disagree with me) then I would prefer having the notes on separate lines as imo it makes it a bit clearer. I've removed the no wiki's from above (and below) to make a comparison easier, while ensuring they are not categorised. Davewild (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Note to editors on how to manage collapsibility:

• Use {{Davewild|state=collapsed}} to show this template in its collapsed (hidden) state.
• Use {{Davewild|state=expanded}} to show this template in its expanded (fully visible) state.
• Use {{Davewild|state=autocollapse}} to show this template in its collapsed (hidden) state only if there is another template of the same type on the page. (This is usually the default.) Category:United Kingdom election year templates

No, that all makes sense. The notes were supposed to be in a straight line, I thought the stars would do it, hah, that's my Wiki-ing knowledge failing rather than a conscious decision! I am not sure about having so many red links though I do get your point. What is annoying to me is that I *do* have a lot of election results going back to the 70s but the laptop is dead and I just need someone to hoik out the hard-drive! Anyway, now I know how to list the notes, I'll correct that bit! As for the wording, again, you make a good point, it just makes sense to me. I'll go back and have a fiddle. doktorb _words^deeds 19:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

RFA thank you

Thank you for your comment and support at my recent successful RFA. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Sheffield Council elections

The templete for Sheffield Council elections is good and useful but I always find the squence boxes preferable as they are not hidden and therefore easier and quicker to use when the year I am most likely looking for is the year previously or year after the year I'm looking at. veganfishcake (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. it's nice to see someone from the Fylde coast working on local elections.I'm from Poulton-le-Fylde and have created Wyre Council election, 2011 (which I stood in), Wyre Council election, 2007 and Wyre Council election, 2003 veganfishcake (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, and nice work on editing the templates from collapsing - that was a bit of an annoyance.

I can only return the compliment - it's good to see another user dedicated to updating wiki's woeful local elections coverage, especially one who'll create new designs I can pilfer. ;) HeadlightMorning (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Swings

I was wondering if you'd weigh in on this discussion me and Doktorb are having on the correct way to do the swings for Mets voted yearly in thirds, as it'd be good to get a consensus. :) HeadlightMorning (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)