Jump to content

Talk:FAU Stadium

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:GEO Group Stadium)

Linking private prisons

[edit]

Editors C.J. Griffin and Niteshift36 have gone back and forth a few times on whether to wikilink private prisons in the body of the article. Yes, according to WP:OVERLINK, everyday words (expressions, phrases, terminology, etc.) understood by most readers in context" should not be linked, but I originally linked it when I wrote it for the following reasons:

  • I do not consider "private prisons" to be an "everyday word". In everyday parlance, "prison" is the common term used to describe "where Person X went to when he or she committed a crime". Few make the distinction in the average conversation between private and public facilities.
  • In some ways, "private prisons" is a region-specific term; the article mentions the United Kingdom and United States, but just because it's a major issue in the US and UK does not mean it is as well-known in other English-speaking parts of the world.
  • Most importantly, WP:UNDERLINK explains that links should be created to "relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully". In this case, the issue is definitely very relevant to the subject of the article, in that a sizable chunk of its media coverage is related to the controversy surrounding the group's operation of private prison facilities.

For those reasons, I think it makes sense to go ahead and link it, which I will probably do in a day or so barring objection here. Runfellow (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Private is a common word. Prison is a common word. Private prison is self-explanatory and obvious. Even if one never studied it, the trend towards privatization in schools, hospitals, government services and utilities is common enough that a reasonably intelligent English speaker would get the idea. There is no underlinking. I simply have more faith in the intelligence of the average reader apparently.Niteshift36 (talk) 01:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Private prison" is certainly *not* an everyday term. I would bet that a great many Americans have no idea that they even exist. Considering the controversy and media coverage surrounding the issue it is pertinent to link it so those who stumble upon this article who might not know much about privatized prisons, like students attending the University for example, can better understand them.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 01:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, the term explains itself. Since privatization is not an uncommon trend, it needs no explanation because it is obvious, even if you've never used it. Further, a big part of this is about GEO Group and anyone curious enough to look at that article will find the obvious "private prison" phrase further explained. It makes more sense to send them to the GEO group article because the "controversy" is about their name being used instead of a subtle way to guide more eyes to your allegedly neutral article about private prisons in general. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The commonness of all of the words in a phrase does not make the phrase itself common or self-explanatory. "Social" is a common word, as is "security", but "Social Security" is a term specific to the United States and would in most cases (assuming it was relevant to the article) be linked.
  • Nor does the prevalence of privatization (at least in the United States) explain what a private prison is. There is no "obvious" definition of privatization because the definitions clearly differ. Your own examples exemplify that: Private schools, for instance, are not run by private firms hired by the government to perform a service for the public, as private prisons are; rather, they are completely separate entities, with their own rules, guidelines, and expectations. That isn't a matter of judging the intelligence of the "average" reader (which is not the standard anyway, according to the MOS). The purpose of wikilinks is to provide easy access to relevant information on related topics. That clearly applies here.
  • I know of nothing that says only one of the two terms (GEO Group or private prisons) can be linked. Yes, GEO Group should be linked, but that has nothing to do with whether private prisons should be linked.
  • As for your final comment, you're obviously strongly implying that this is an WP:NPOV issue rather than the MOS issue you originally cited. Obviously one wikilink is not that big of a deal, but a general NPOV accusation can be. If your beef here is with the article for private prisons, then that's the article you should be editing, not this one. Reducing the number of links to an article because you feel it is unbalanced is itself an NPOV issue of sorts. Additionally, I made that original edit to include and link the phrase "private prisons" in the first place, not that editor, and I obviously have nothing to do with any article on the subject of private prisons (my edit history includes probably hundreds on football stadiums). That's a problem you should work out with him/her elsewhere. – Runfellow (talk) 04:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) Your social security example is flawed because it is given different meaning in phrase form. This is not. It is a prison, that is privately run. Private prison. No alternate meaning. In this case it is very self explanatory. 2) Private schools are often run by companies hired to run them. Same with fire departments or utility companies. In many cases, these prison facilities were government run and GEO (or other companies) are hired to take them over and run them. And it's not uncommon for those facilities to revert back to govt. operation at the end of the contract. 3) The MOS doesn't use the word "intelligence", but it does say "understood by most readers in contex". I firmly believe that most readers understand this phrase, in context, without your "help". 4) No, nothing says both can't be linked. Nor have I made such a statement. But I believe the MOS says this phrase shouldn't be linked. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because you don't use it every day doesn't mean it's not commonly understood, especially in a context like this. As for your interpretation of my last comment, well, you're wrong and just being pissy because I'm pointing out the "coincidence" of how your edits seems to have a high ratio of ones involving this issue. Similarly, I could call your affinity for this link a case of WP:ILIKEIT. In an aspect though, you are correct, I don't like some things....wikilinks that serve little purpose is one and editors with agendas pretending like they don't have one is another. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not a "flaw" in the Social Security example; it is exactly my point that the phrase form is different. Your specific argument was that if both words in a phrase were common, the phrase itself must also be commonly understood. That's obviously not the case in many instances, including this one.
  • Regardless as to who you feel should or should not know the definition, "private prisons" is still not an "everyday phrase", as you admit in your last comment. The MOS doesn't say "if it's an everyday phrase or commonly understood. It says it must be both. It isn't, as you've admitted.
  • Considering I work for a private school, I'm fairly sure they are not often run by companies contracted by the government. I'd love to hear some examples of schools referred to as "private schools" that are specifically contracted out by the government to do a service for the public in the same way as a privatized prison.
  • The heading you linked to in the MOS says "what generally should not be linked", not "what should never be linked". Even if you could make the case that this was an everyday word or phrase understood by most readers in context (which is very clearly disputed by the very different perceptions of the word "private" discussed here), it very obviously meets the criteria for "what generally should be linked" above it. Seeing as the purpose of wikilinking is to provide further information for those who want it, not just to provide a definition of a word as you seem to believe, the presence of a link does more good here than the absence of it.
  • If you want to express beef with a specific editor, you can do it elsewhere. But as I said before, I was the one who put the link in originally. I also edited this article before the naming rights were purchased. Are you saying I also have an agenda? What edits of mine are you basing that off of?

This seems to be a personal issue with you regarding the article for private prisons, not one based on the MOS. It's also one that you should have brought up on the talk page, rather than told others to do in your edit summary. Unless you can come up with an argument other than "everybody knows what a private prison is" and "I don't like the article it links to", the link stays. – Runfellow (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1) Yes, it is flawed because it doesn't use it to describe the clearly obvious. The phrase is commonly understood because both common words are being used in a simple manner. Private means private and prison means prison. In theis case a private prison means exactly what it says. In your example, social and security aren't being used in their most common meanins and being put together to form a proper name of a program.
  • 2) "Everyday" doesn't mean you use it every day and you know that.
  • 3) Again, we disagree.
  • 4) Now this is where you really go astray. I skipped addressing it above because the original comments weren't directed at you (although admittedly they looked that way). In other words, I moved on and you stayed there, latched onto the issue. Then, you took it to your edit summary. Don't tell me what my issue is or is not. I objected to it based on the MOS. That is my basis. For you to say otherwise is false. Clear enough? That I commented further on the other editors edits doesn't change my original objection. I can comment on one without having to use it as the basis. I might have even left your most recent revert alone, but not with your edit summary declaring that you know my 'real intent'. Don't put words in my mouth or engage in your own personal synth of my position, especially not in an edit summary where proper response can't be privded. that's just bush league.
  • 5) I never gave "I don't like where it links to" as a reason. That's another lie, um, fabrication, falsehood on your part. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding #1: Two commonly understood words do not equal a commonly understood phrase, especially one that has entered only some cultural lexicons relatively recently. Your perception of private schools is an example of this: "private" is a common word, and so is "school". I'm sure you understand both, and yet definitions of "private school" vary significantly. Yours, for example, I had never even heard of.
  • Regarding #2: It doesn't matter if you take "everyday" to mean "every day", or "commonly", or "every once in a blue moon" or whatever, most people do not use the phrase "private prisons" unless they are discussing the subject specifically. I'm willing to bet most people aren't sitting around the water cooler discussing private prisons.
  • Regarding #3: Disagree with what? Does it not say "generally" on both? Or do you disagree with the stated primary purpose of linking on that page, which is "to 'build the web' to enable readers to access relevant information on other pages easily." You can't cherry pick one debatable point on that page and ignore the rest of it. When in doubt, go with the general philosophy. People obviously don't just click on links to find out what something is; it's a way for people to learn more about the subject discussed, even if they already know what private prisons are.
  • Regarding #4 & #5: I made an inference based on your reason for coming to the article in the first place and what you wrote. If I was wrong, I suppose you'll have to get over it. – Runfellow (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I truthfully don't give a rats furry ass what you based your inference on. Trying to explain why won't make it less wrong. You inability to stay on the topic and not venture off into creating your own version of my 'real' motives is the primary reason this conversation is still going on. That and your attempt to cheap shot via edit summary. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you want some kind of apology or what. If that's the case, I'm genuinely sorry I misunderstood your motives. Addressing the topic at hand, however: Have your MOS concerns regarding the link been addressed or not? If so, I'll put link back in, and we move on. If not, please address my points, or propose a compromise and I'll be happy to consider it. – Runfellow (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really, but I honestly doubt that we'll see eye to eye on it since we simply differ on the notion of what commonly understood means (which differs from commonly used). In any case, I do appreciate your apol9ogy and it appears the whole thing has become moot anyway. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update Ironically, the naming rights deal has been cancelled anyway. I'm willing to let the article pan out for a couple of weeks to see where all that goes before trying to change anything along these lines again. – Runfellow (talk) 04:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

notable games

[edit]

notable game: germany against ecuador, friendly match. --Dirk | <°°> 18:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on FAU Stadium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on FAU Stadium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on FAU Stadium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:FAU_Stadium&oldid=1207190021"