Talk:List of Quebec Nordiques draft picks
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Concerning the use of flags
[edit]WP:MOSFLAG seems pretty clear on the use of flag icons: "Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense; flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality". When the team was called the Nordiques, they were Canadian, so using the flags to indicate a player's legal nationality goes contrary to WP:MOSFLAG, as (1) they would all be Canadian so there's no reason to list a Canadian flag on each one, and (2) the flags as currently used shows non-Canadian flags, which goes contrary to the consensus at WP:MOSFLAG. As such, I've removed them unless a consensus is established as to why WP:MOSFLAG should be ignored in this instance, and I can't think of any good reason why it should. - Aoidh (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Restore Flags. This is a list of draft picks, and the flags do indicate the player's nationality in a sporting sense. The nationalities which make up a team is an important characteristic of professional ice teams. The flag template is informative, attractive, and meets the specifications for use as outlined at MOSFLAG. Dolovis (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- I feel like it's either appropriate to use the flag AND the "nationality" column of the table or neither. I'd personally aim towards neither, since this is just the national origin of the players and certainly violates the spirit of WP:MOSFLAG. I don't see how the nationalities are "important" as to how they play hockey. Should we also list their ethnicity and sexual orientation? Those seem approximately as "important" for the makeup of the team. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 22:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- That's not what "in a sporting sense" means. If they are from Slovakia but play for a Canadian team, a Slovakian flag is not "in a sporting sense", that's their personal nationality, and contrary to WP:MOSFLAG. So no, it doesn't meet the specification, quite the opposite in fact. - Aoidh (talk) 00:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Restore Flags. It is much easier to have a mental breakdown of nationality with flags than it is to read stale boxes of text. Take the roster templates for example. I think that aesthetics should count for something as well. English Wikipedia can get to flat and rigid sometimes, leaving more robotic rather than user-friendly pages. Something simple as flags on these pages would in my opinion, make them easier to read. Thricecube 23:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- What's with the bold text (general question, since Dolovis did it too)? If this is an RfC I think someone should tag it, but I don't think that things have necessarily come to the point that an RfC is necessary quite yet. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 01:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Not just RfCs use bolding in this way. General discussions use it frequently. -DJSasso (talk) 13:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- I guess, but my problem with it is that it seems to be breaking up the flow of the conversation. If we're trying to build consensus it should go point-counterpoint-point-counterpoint until we reach consensus or an impasse. When it's done this way, each person comes in with a fresh assessment of the situation which often has overlaps. That's what you want for an RfC, but not for an initial try at consensus-building. Too late to stop it now, I suppose. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 17:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Not just RfCs use bolding in this way. General discussions use it frequently. -DJSasso (talk) 13:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- What's with the bold text (general question, since Dolovis did it too)? If this is an RfC I think someone should tag it, but I don't think that things have necessarily come to the point that an RfC is necessary quite yet. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 01:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Restore MOSFLAG is just a guideline and not a policy. One that through countless discussions has found that flags are used on articles such as this. Frankly I wish that guideline would just be removed because it is changed so often without discussion and is generally IAR'd throughout most of the wiki that there is no point to it. The flags belong so they should be restored and their restoration shouldn't have been reverted since WP:BRD says pages should be reverted back to the last stable version until a new consensus is reached. -DJSasso (talk) 13:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- The guideline says the opposite, so which discussions are you referring to? The flags serve no useful purpose and convey no useful information so you saying they "belong" appears to be your opinion rather than based on any fact or prior consensus, nor does WP:BRD (which isn't even a guideline, but an essay) support restoring the information; consensus is that the flags do not belong, and this is reflected at WP:MOSFLAG, until a new consensus is established (keeping in mind that this discussion cannot decide that the larger consensus does not apply to this article, the flags shouldn't be restored. - Aoidh (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- The guideline specifically allows for flags for articles in a sporting sense which is what these flags are being used for. Junior players at the time they are drafted will have an open nationality because they do not have to declare until they play in Senior competition. Thus their nationality in a sporting sense is almost always the same as their birth place unless they specifically declare otherwise. It would be an extremely rare situation were it were different for a junior aged player. So either way MOSFLAG already allows for them. And yes a discussion at a page can overrule a guideline because a guideline is a guideline. If you look at the right at the box declaring it as a guideline that it can have exceptions. If it were a policy that would be different, a local consensus couldn't override a policy. -DJSasso (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- That's specifically not a sporting sense, that is their legal nationality. If they were playing for the Canadian team, a Canadian flag would be used in a "sporting sense". In no way does WP:MOSFLAG's wording support the use of these icons here. If they have no nationality in a sporting sense until they specifically declare otherwise, then they have no nationality in a sporting sense, you can't have it both ways in this regard, they don't represent a nationality they don't play for. That a guideline is a guideline (...what?) is fine, but I suggest you read WP:CONLIMITED again, as it doesn't agree with your reasoning. I'm not suggesting a guideline is set in stone like WP:NPOV, but WP:MOSFLAG is a consensus, one that cannot be ignored simply because hockey editors don't agree with it concerning articles that fall under the scope of a specific WikiProject. - Aoidh (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- The guideline specifically allows for flags for articles in a sporting sense which is what these flags are being used for. Junior players at the time they are drafted will have an open nationality because they do not have to declare until they play in Senior competition. Thus their nationality in a sporting sense is almost always the same as their birth place unless they specifically declare otherwise. It would be an extremely rare situation were it were different for a junior aged player. So either way MOSFLAG already allows for them. And yes a discussion at a page can overrule a guideline because a guideline is a guideline. If you look at the right at the box declaring it as a guideline that it can have exceptions. If it were a policy that would be different, a local consensus couldn't override a policy. -DJSasso (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- The guideline says the opposite, so which discussions are you referring to? The flags serve no useful purpose and convey no useful information so you saying they "belong" appears to be your opinion rather than based on any fact or prior consensus, nor does WP:BRD (which isn't even a guideline, but an essay) support restoring the information; consensus is that the flags do not belong, and this is reflected at WP:MOSFLAG, until a new consensus is established (keeping in mind that this discussion cannot decide that the larger consensus does not apply to this article, the flags shouldn't be restored. - Aoidh (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Do Not Restore Plain text conveys the same information as the flag templates. Decorative flourish seems to be the only rationale to restore them; if one wishes to break up the monotony of flag template-less list don't images of the players drafted by the team do just that? -- My primary concern is with accessibility: the flag templates increase page load times and can make editing larger pages troublesome. For instance I could not edit a list of players article without getting an error message every time I saved the page (this occurred over several months). Some times the edits would go through and other times they would not. I replaced the flag templates with plain text and that hasn't been an issue since. -- I'm not completely anti-flag templates - I think they are preferable on a smaller list of players like the roster templates where it is just the flag without the text - but I don't see how decorative flourish outweighs the issues experienced by those without super computers and/or super fast connections with regards to the longer lists like players and draft picks. --Parkfly3 (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Well, at least what appeared on this talk page prior to today is no longer laughably viewed as a consensus. -- I'd like to point out another reason to remove the flag templates. The most recent NHL team draft picks article to be promoted to Featured List status - List of Detroit Red Wings draft picks - does not have the flag templates and did not when it was promoted. In the featured list candidates discussion from May 2013 it is pointed out that using the flag templates amounts to overlinking. With the Red Wings article in mind I decided not to use them when overhauling some of the draft picks articles of defunct/relocated teams (most of which were largely incomplete) two months back. I thought they should conform to the most recent related article to reach featured list status. -- Repeating from before: Plain text conveys the same information as the flag templates. Without the flag templates the article still provides the information that Eric Lindros is Canadian, Mats Sundin is Swedish, and so on. And based on what Aoidh says at the beginning of the Concerning WP:MOSFLAG section, I don't see how the flag templates can be justified. --Parkfly3 (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Recent edits
[edit]Recently this has picked back up with editors ignoring WP:MOSFLAG and attempting to reinsert the icons without discussion. There is no consensus to include them and the relevant guideline is unambiguous on this matter; listing their legal nationality is very much a non-sporting sense, if they were used in a sporting sense they would all be Canadian flags, which has no purpose. WP:MOSFLAG says quite clearly "Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense; flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality" and "Where flags are used in a table, it should clearly indicate that they correspond to representative nationality, not legal nationality, if any confusion might arise" this is quite clearly not how these flag icons are being used here. - Aoidh (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- I am going to be blunt. You are acting in bad faith to enforce your personal POV. The icons WERE THERE FROM THE BEGINNING. The fact is, the editors ignoring the consensus building process are the ones trying to REMOVE the icons. There is no consensus to REMOVE the icons, which would be obvious both from the article history, and from the talk page discussion. You don't get to claim your view has primacy when it is the one that is not accepted, and you are the one edit warring to try and force your POV. This is hypocritical bad faith on your part. It is YOUR responsibility to build consensus for change, not ours to restore the status quo ante. I strongly suggest you self-revert pending the development of such a consensus. Resolute 22:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- First of all, assume the assumption of good-faith. That I have to tell an administrator that is worrying. Please read over WP:AOBF before accusing others of bad faith in the future, because that's an inaccurate accusation that serves no benefit, even if it were true. The consensus you're asking for, from what I can tell, has been there longer than this article, so that's a hollow, weak argument that only highlights that there's nothing of substance to back up your claim. You cannot claim that there is no consensus to remove the icons when it's already found at WP:MOSFLAG. Asking others to edit-war for you is disruptive behavior even ignoring the blatant incivility; you might want to rethink that request. - Aoidh (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- When someone edit warring up to 3rr presumes to lecture others about not edit warring, I will call that out as bad faith. Doubly so given you chose to template me at 2rr in a bid to win a fight you picked. So yes, in this instance, you are acting in bad faith and I will call you out on it. The moment you were reverted the first time, that was your cue to come here and discuss. And the fact that I have to explain this to an editor who has been here for over four years is depressing.
- First of all, assume the assumption of good-faith. That I have to tell an administrator that is worrying. Please read over WP:AOBF before accusing others of bad faith in the future, because that's an inaccurate accusation that serves no benefit, even if it were true. The consensus you're asking for, from what I can tell, has been there longer than this article, so that's a hollow, weak argument that only highlights that there's nothing of substance to back up your claim. You cannot claim that there is no consensus to remove the icons when it's already found at WP:MOSFLAG. Asking others to edit-war for you is disruptive behavior even ignoring the blatant incivility; you might want to rethink that request. - Aoidh (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- As to the guideline of MOS:FLAG, as I noted in my reply to you on your talk page, I am open to discussion. But not at the end of barrel. When you are prepared to stop edit warring and discuss in good faith, I'll listen. Also, since you don't seem to have any real understanding of nationality in the sporting sense, I will make mention that several players on these lists have represented their nations internationally. There is an entirely international element to it. (As an aside, even my Calgary Flames yearbook for this year makes prominent mention of each player's nationality.) If that should prove to not be enough and consensus finds the flags should be removed anyway, we'll deal with it then. But until that point, if you are anything approaching the good faith editor you claim to be, you will stand the article back to status quo ante and allow that discussion to happen. Resolute 23:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- If you call that out as bad faith, then you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's definition of "bad faith". You are welcome to start a discussion at WP:AN so that you may be educated on the definition, but until you are able to discuss without accusing others of "bad faith" for simply disagreeing with you, you're shooting yourself in the foot and blaming others for the wound. This "not at the end of a barrel" thing works both ways, perhaps you should consider that. Not once, in this entire discussion, have you even attempted to explain why the content belongs, instead only muddying up the discussion in accusations. Please stop saying that you're willing to discuss the content and actually discuss the content. - Aoidh (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- I already have, which you completely ignored. I will also clue you into something else. Dolovis was complaining about List of Philadelphia Flyers draft picks as well. I looked at that article first, but made no change because while that article also used icons for nearly all of its history, it had been stable without for several months. In that case, I chose to leave as is with the intention of engaging in a debate rather than stepping into their little battle (and would have had I not encountered you). This is how you should have acted here. I never should have had to revert you more than once. I never even should have had to revert you the first time. You should have paid attention to the fact that the issue was already contentious and already under discussion and simply joined the debate. We are where we are because of your own failure to act properly. I am not accusing you of acting in bad faith for "simply disagreeing" with me, but for edit warring to try and force your preferred version while attacking others for trying to restore to the original pending resolution of the discussion. And the fact that you are now resorting to attacking strawmen certainly does not raise my opinion of you any. Resolute 23:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- If you've already discussed the content I must be blind because I just read this entire thing once over and can't find it. You seem more interested in how others "should have acted" (while also ignoring your own behavior) instead of actually discussing the content. You continue to misuse "bad faith", that's not a strawman, it's something you continue to do instead of discussion. Stop accusing me of bad faith when you know very well there's no bad faith here, and start discussing the actual content, please. - Aoidh (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Actually it is what you continue to keep doing. You keep assuming bad faith where there was none. Yet you proved yourself to be acting in bad faith by reverting 3 times and then templating one editor after 2 reverts and me after only 1. You assumed I came here at someone else's request. All of these things are acting in bad faith. If you want to have a discussion stop attacking people and making strawmen arguments. As for discussing the content he did so in his very second comment in this section which you ignored and continued on attacking him. If you think everyone else is refusing to discuss you might want to look in the mirror. I was going to discuss the situation after I reverted you but you templated me immediately before I could finished my post short circuiting my attempt to comment on the discussion. Now because of this crap you stirred up I don't have time to reply until tomorrow because I have to head off. -DJSasso (talk) 00:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, now you're saying something different than Resolute, but you're equally wrong. I was not acting in bad faith, which is what Resolute was saying, nor am I assuming that anyone else is acting in bad faith, which is what you seem to be suggesting. Edit-warring is not acting in bad faith nor assuming bad faith in others. I did not "short circuit" you from discussing on the talk page, if you did not engage in discussion that is on you, do not place that blame at my feet. I have not attacked anyone (certainly not per WP:NPA) nor have I made any "strawman arguments". I started the discussion, in good faith, and am waiting for any response that involves actual content, so this "you might want to look in the mirror" bit doesn't make much sense. Please don't tell me that I'm "assuming bad faith", you don't know what I'm assuming, certainly not better than I do, and I'm telling you right now, again, that I did not act in bad faith, nor did I assume it in others, and I'm a little disheartened that I have to spell that out this many times to not one, but two administrators. - Aoidh (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm disheartened that you can't wrap your head around that the consensus -- in which I concur -- is running solidly against your POV. The nature of a consensus-driven encyclopedia is that sometimes you are going to be on the losing side, in which your only legitimate option is to lose gracefully and move on. No one here is under any onus to agree with you, and no one is under any onus to debate you on such terms as you demand. You have made your argument, exhaustively. Six editors disagree with you; only one is supporting you. That is, as they say, a consensus, and we're not required to put the article on hold until you approve of our rationale. It is, I advise, time to move on. Ravenswing 03:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- A quick look at your recent contribs shows betrays your purpose here, even ignoring the fact that (1) consensus is not a vote, especially not a canvassed vote, (2) 6 to 2 is not a consensus even by the weak claim of a voting metric, and (3) a WikiProject cannot decide that a guideline does not apply. This comment seems to sum this article's "consensus" up pretty well. What I am trying to discuss is whether or not this article follows that guideline, that is part of the consensus-driven encyclopedia. You are more than welcome to take part in the discussion below. - Aoidh (talk) 04:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps you can tell me why it is that you object so vociferously to your actions categorized as being in bad faith, when you have no compunctions with assigning sinister motives to others. My purpose, having seen that there was a dispute going on here, was to come over and put in my two cents worth. This is the privilege of ANY editor on Wikipedia. As far as what voting percentage constitutes consensus, that's something of which someone with your edit count oughtn't so badly misread. 2:1 will invariably carry the day at XfD; 3:1 would be considered a staunch level of support. Ravenswing 20:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Because "bad faith" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia per policy, and it's being used in spite of that. I never suggested you had a "sinister motive", yet you seem quite eager to not only assume, but to accuse me otherwise. I never commented on any "motive", so to continue to speculate on what you believe I speculate on is nothing short of continued, willful ignorance. That you believe a "voting percentage" constitutes a consensus, that's wildly inaccurate and out of touch with Wikipedia policy, which seems to be a theme here. AfDs are not closed by vote; there are many AfDs where "2:1 carries the day" but consensus is found to be the opposite, because of WP:CONSENSUS; consensus is determined by the discussion, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, not by how many people you can get together and comment on a specific page. A few editors from a WikiProject cannot decide the guideline doesn't apply, so The comment about your contribs was a reference to what is also found on your userpage; you are a very, very focused editor on Wikipedia, part of the same clique of editors that Resolute canvassed to edit-war on his behalf, and not some neutral, uninvolved party. - Aoidh (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- You claim you aren't suggesting sinister motives and then you go and state because we agree with him that we are canvassed here and are part of a clique...all of which is you acting in bad faith and assigning motives on us based on assumptions. Its impossible to discuss with someone who keeps attacking editors without substantiation. -DJSasso (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- See your talk page. Everything I have said has been backed up by diffs and contribs, so "without substantiation" is inaccurate. Contrast that to what you accusing of me "acting in bad faith and assigning motives on us", with which you have provided no evidence whatsoever. You're jumping to conclusions and acting offended by what you've concluded. - Aoidh (talk) 02:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- You do it right here "part of the same clique of editors that Resolute canvassed to edit-war on his behalf". Just because he posted something asking someone to do something does not mean that people did it because he asked. You are assuming and ascribing bad faith to us when you do so. It is bad faith for you to continue to do so when you have absolutely zero evidence that we actually did so. It is further bad faith to accuse people of being a clique. If you do not understand what bad faith is, that is not my problem. From Wikipedia:AAGF#What Bad Faith Is "Any edit or comment which is made to deliberately disrupt the project." The most recent time you have done this is accusing people of being here as a clique or coming here because we were canvassed and accusing us of stonewalling. Those are all deliberately disruptive comments. Templating regulars as you did to both me and Resolute is also often called disruptive. So that can also be described as bad faith. Would you like me to go on, I can show you many more ways how you have indeed acted in bad faith. -DJSasso (talk) 10:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- And I would note when you link to WP:NPA you should actually read it because calling us a clique and you constant commenting on us violates the following part of NPA. "Criticisms of, or references to, personal behavior in an inappropriate context, like on a policy or article talk page, or in an edit summary, rather than on a user page or conflict resolution page. Remember: Comment on content, not on the contributor." And as explained above you have zero evidence I came here because I was canvassed, all you have is a diff of someone else asking people to come here. So you also violate "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." -DJSasso (talk) 11:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- This discussion has nothing to do with the content; see your talk page. - Aoidh (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- See your talk page. Everything I have said has been backed up by diffs and contribs, so "without substantiation" is inaccurate. Contrast that to what you accusing of me "acting in bad faith and assigning motives on us", with which you have provided no evidence whatsoever. You're jumping to conclusions and acting offended by what you've concluded. - Aoidh (talk) 02:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- You claim you aren't suggesting sinister motives and then you go and state because we agree with him that we are canvassed here and are part of a clique...all of which is you acting in bad faith and assigning motives on us based on assumptions. Its impossible to discuss with someone who keeps attacking editors without substantiation. -DJSasso (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Because "bad faith" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia per policy, and it's being used in spite of that. I never suggested you had a "sinister motive", yet you seem quite eager to not only assume, but to accuse me otherwise. I never commented on any "motive", so to continue to speculate on what you believe I speculate on is nothing short of continued, willful ignorance. That you believe a "voting percentage" constitutes a consensus, that's wildly inaccurate and out of touch with Wikipedia policy, which seems to be a theme here. AfDs are not closed by vote; there are many AfDs where "2:1 carries the day" but consensus is found to be the opposite, because of WP:CONSENSUS; consensus is determined by the discussion, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, not by how many people you can get together and comment on a specific page. A few editors from a WikiProject cannot decide the guideline doesn't apply, so The comment about your contribs was a reference to what is also found on your userpage; you are a very, very focused editor on Wikipedia, part of the same clique of editors that Resolute canvassed to edit-war on his behalf, and not some neutral, uninvolved party. - Aoidh (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps you can tell me why it is that you object so vociferously to your actions categorized as being in bad faith, when you have no compunctions with assigning sinister motives to others. My purpose, having seen that there was a dispute going on here, was to come over and put in my two cents worth. This is the privilege of ANY editor on Wikipedia. As far as what voting percentage constitutes consensus, that's something of which someone with your edit count oughtn't so badly misread. 2:1 will invariably carry the day at XfD; 3:1 would be considered a staunch level of support. Ravenswing 20:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- A quick look at your recent contribs shows betrays your purpose here, even ignoring the fact that (1) consensus is not a vote, especially not a canvassed vote, (2) 6 to 2 is not a consensus even by the weak claim of a voting metric, and (3) a WikiProject cannot decide that a guideline does not apply. This comment seems to sum this article's "consensus" up pretty well. What I am trying to discuss is whether or not this article follows that guideline, that is part of the consensus-driven encyclopedia. You are more than welcome to take part in the discussion below. - Aoidh (talk) 04:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm disheartened that you can't wrap your head around that the consensus -- in which I concur -- is running solidly against your POV. The nature of a consensus-driven encyclopedia is that sometimes you are going to be on the losing side, in which your only legitimate option is to lose gracefully and move on. No one here is under any onus to agree with you, and no one is under any onus to debate you on such terms as you demand. You have made your argument, exhaustively. Six editors disagree with you; only one is supporting you. That is, as they say, a consensus, and we're not required to put the article on hold until you approve of our rationale. It is, I advise, time to move on. Ravenswing 03:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, now you're saying something different than Resolute, but you're equally wrong. I was not acting in bad faith, which is what Resolute was saying, nor am I assuming that anyone else is acting in bad faith, which is what you seem to be suggesting. Edit-warring is not acting in bad faith nor assuming bad faith in others. I did not "short circuit" you from discussing on the talk page, if you did not engage in discussion that is on you, do not place that blame at my feet. I have not attacked anyone (certainly not per WP:NPA) nor have I made any "strawman arguments". I started the discussion, in good faith, and am waiting for any response that involves actual content, so this "you might want to look in the mirror" bit doesn't make much sense. Please don't tell me that I'm "assuming bad faith", you don't know what I'm assuming, certainly not better than I do, and I'm telling you right now, again, that I did not act in bad faith, nor did I assume it in others, and I'm a little disheartened that I have to spell that out this many times to not one, but two administrators. - Aoidh (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Actually it is what you continue to keep doing. You keep assuming bad faith where there was none. Yet you proved yourself to be acting in bad faith by reverting 3 times and then templating one editor after 2 reverts and me after only 1. You assumed I came here at someone else's request. All of these things are acting in bad faith. If you want to have a discussion stop attacking people and making strawmen arguments. As for discussing the content he did so in his very second comment in this section which you ignored and continued on attacking him. If you think everyone else is refusing to discuss you might want to look in the mirror. I was going to discuss the situation after I reverted you but you templated me immediately before I could finished my post short circuiting my attempt to comment on the discussion. Now because of this crap you stirred up I don't have time to reply until tomorrow because I have to head off. -DJSasso (talk) 00:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- If you've already discussed the content I must be blind because I just read this entire thing once over and can't find it. You seem more interested in how others "should have acted" (while also ignoring your own behavior) instead of actually discussing the content. You continue to misuse "bad faith", that's not a strawman, it's something you continue to do instead of discussion. Stop accusing me of bad faith when you know very well there's no bad faith here, and start discussing the actual content, please. - Aoidh (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- I already have, which you completely ignored. I will also clue you into something else. Dolovis was complaining about List of Philadelphia Flyers draft picks as well. I looked at that article first, but made no change because while that article also used icons for nearly all of its history, it had been stable without for several months. In that case, I chose to leave as is with the intention of engaging in a debate rather than stepping into their little battle (and would have had I not encountered you). This is how you should have acted here. I never should have had to revert you more than once. I never even should have had to revert you the first time. You should have paid attention to the fact that the issue was already contentious and already under discussion and simply joined the debate. We are where we are because of your own failure to act properly. I am not accusing you of acting in bad faith for "simply disagreeing" with me, but for edit warring to try and force your preferred version while attacking others for trying to restore to the original pending resolution of the discussion. And the fact that you are now resorting to attacking strawmen certainly does not raise my opinion of you any. Resolute 23:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- If you call that out as bad faith, then you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's definition of "bad faith". You are welcome to start a discussion at WP:AN so that you may be educated on the definition, but until you are able to discuss without accusing others of "bad faith" for simply disagreeing with you, you're shooting yourself in the foot and blaming others for the wound. This "not at the end of a barrel" thing works both ways, perhaps you should consider that. Not once, in this entire discussion, have you even attempted to explain why the content belongs, instead only muddying up the discussion in accusations. Please stop saying that you're willing to discuss the content and actually discuss the content. - Aoidh (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- As to the guideline of MOS:FLAG, as I noted in my reply to you on your talk page, I am open to discussion. But not at the end of barrel. When you are prepared to stop edit warring and discuss in good faith, I'll listen. Also, since you don't seem to have any real understanding of nationality in the sporting sense, I will make mention that several players on these lists have represented their nations internationally. There is an entirely international element to it. (As an aside, even my Calgary Flames yearbook for this year makes prominent mention of each player's nationality.) If that should prove to not be enough and consensus finds the flags should be removed anyway, we'll deal with it then. But until that point, if you are anything approaching the good faith editor you claim to be, you will stand the article back to status quo ante and allow that discussion to happen. Resolute 23:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Concerning WP:MOSFLAG
[edit]Since the previous subsection got a bit derailed, I'd like to try to start a new discussion focused solely on the content itself and whether the flag icons belong in the article per WP:MOSFLAG. The guideline says, in relation to sportspeople, that "Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense; flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality" and "Where flags are used in a table, it should clearly indicate that they correspond to representative nationality, not legal nationality, if any confusion might arise" The flags used in the article are of the player's legal nationality, so they don't seem to be exactly the type of use that the guideline spells out as inappropriate. If they played in their home nation wouldn't apply since they aren't being represented here as a member of a given team in that table, but of a given legal nationality. Being picked in a draft for a Canadian team would mean all the flags should be Canadian since that would be their representative nationality (being a Canadian team), and at that point there's no point in having the flag icons at all, since they would all be Canadian. - Aoidh (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, you are taking a non-standard view of "representative nationality" compared to how it is viewed in hockey, and in most sports for that matter. Club teams do not represent any nation, particularly not in the NHL/North American hockey. In this case, the representative nationality of players would be the teams they have or would represent internationally. A relevant example from this article is Owen Nolan, who was born in Northern Ireland but represents Canada, and that is how he is flagged. The national background of players is relevant, as noted by the yearbook example I gave above. Additionally, if we were to take your argument as valid, you should actually be arguing against the entire column, not just your personal dislike for the flag icons. Resolute 03:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Your interpretation of how WP:MOSFLAG should be applied is entirely inconsistent with the actual guideline; if your explanation was accurate, the current wording would have to be removed entirely because it would be next to meaningless, and it looks like that was proposed, and consensus is against that very thing, so what you're saying does not appear to be reflective of consensus. I'm not sure how your Owen Nolan example is supposed to support these flags, what that article does is exactly what I am suggesting; he represented Canada on an international level. Did these players represent their respective countries on an international level? If not, and these flags are simply being used to represent where they are from (which is exactly what "Nationality" means), then that is exactly what WP:MOSFLAG cites as inappropriate use of the flag icons. - Aoidh (talk) 04:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- My interpretation is supported by people who actually edit in the field (so to speak), and which carries widespread support, as evidenced by the number of articles for which they are used. Ultimately, and as usual, your own argument flips against you. It appears that the small group on that guideline's talk page is the one trying to place a local consensus above the wider community. Your small group can reject codifying what is done in practice, but that won't change what is done in practice. All you are really doing is damning the guideline to irrelevance. Resolute 05:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- WP:CONLIMITED disagrees with your outlook on the guideline. Saying my argument "flips against me" doesn't make it so, especially when you fail to explain what that is even supposed to mean. Wikipedia policy and the larger consensus both disagree with you (and no, the guideline is not a "local consensus", that would be this article's talk page). If there was a discussion about this in the "wider community" please provide a link to that (such as a policy page or large RfC?), but a few talk page discussions where the same WikiProject editors all reject the wider consensus is not a reflection that the guideline is "irrelevant". Commenting on your edit summary, I agree that the guideline is is inconsistent with how some editors edit, but the same can be said of people vandalizing articles; that is inconsistent with WP:VAND, that inconsistency does not negate consensus (I'm not calling your view vandalism, only pointing out that editors ignoring or not editing along guidelines and policies does not negate the consensus that guideline/policy represents). If you believe the guideline is out of touch with consensus, open a discussion to see if consensus has changed (which has been done). If the consensus has not changed (which, again, seems to be the case), that is an indication that consensus is against you, not that the consensus is irrelevant. - Aoidh (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Your guideline isn't inconsistent with how "some editors edit". It is inconsistent with widespread practice on Wikipedia. The use of the flags to denote nationality is widely used in articles related to hockey, soccer, basketball, tennis, boxing, cricket, and many other sports. I find it rather amusing that you suggest I go to the guideline's talk page to try and change that local consensus when reality already demonstrates that it is the regulars at that page is out of touch. The discussion you point to is nothing more than your small little group refusing to accept wider reality. Djsasso said it best on the other talk page - Guidelines exist to describe practice, not proscribe it. Resolute 14:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- When it was pointed out how this page is against the relevant guideline, suddenly you shift tactics and it's the guideline that doesn't matter (despite Wikipedia policy saying otherwise). Strange how it's suddenly "my small little group" when consensus is against you, and you and a few other editors represent some "wider reality" than the guideline, yet you can't actually show that this "wider reality" exists except on a few talk pages where you and the same few editors push a POV against consensus. Guidelines exist to reflect consensus, not to force your desperate POV. - Aoidh (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- You know something? I am beginning to come to the belief that you are acting in bad faith here. You are not seeking a discussion about the language of the guideline or its applicability here, but to browbeat others into acquiescence of your POV, and I get the impression that what you mean by "discussion" is "This is the part where you all must agree with me." The reality of the situation, however, is that clear consensus here holds that displaying the flags is acceptable. We don't need to seek consensus in some other venue to support that POV; it already exists right here. As far as your repeated inferences that MOSFLAG is a rigid policy instead of the guideline that it is, I refer you to the alert at the top of the page: "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." (Policies, by contrast, carry the tag "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors must normally follow.")
If consensus supported your POV, that would be another thing. It doesn't. It's well past time for you to accept that, gracefully, and move on. Ravenswing 21:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed. I was going to comment on Aoidh's patronizing tone before, but decided to take one more crack at keeping this discussion productive. Clearly that was in vain. And yes, Aoidh, I can very easily show the existence of a wider reality. Reality is contained in the thousands of articles related to dozens of sports that use this style. I told you at the outset that I was willing to listen to arguments for change, but if the only argument you have is "do as I say", well, we're probably done here. Resolute 23:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Resolute, please cite this discussion, or I can only assume it doesn't exist, because the existance of articles that do not follow MoS is not evidence of anything other than the fact that they do not reflect consensus. If this is your reaction to after an entire discussion where your tone, your attacks, and your refusal to accept consensus has been what it is, your claim that it was "in vain" comes across as disingenuous. If all you've read is "do as I say", you need to re-read this discussion, and the discussion on the guideline page, because in what's becoming a pattern, what you're saying is wildly different than the actual case. Ravenswing, see the above discussion and also WP:CONLIMITED, which is a policy; your WikiProject cannot decide that the wider consensus found at the guideline is "out of touch" and can be ignored. - Aoidh (talk) 12:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- I grow tired of repeating myself, so this will be the last time. The fact that literally thousands of articles representing dozens of wikiprojects ignore your small little group's attempts at turning their opinion into wikiwide policy is all the consensus I need to show. Yes, people who largely do not edit in the sporting sphere have made an attempt at Laying Down The LawTM. People who do edit in this sphere have disregarded it. Why? Because we believe that your viewpoint does not fit the needs of our readers. I'm sorry, but the opinion of a very small group of editors about what they believe the guideline should be does not trump the methodology used by hundreds, if not thousands, of editors since Wikipedia began. And it is obvious that these hundreds, if not thousands, of editors believe the current formatting benefits our readers. That's all the justification I need. And, unless you have a new argument to present, that is also my final word on the subject. Resolute 13:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- That is exactly what I was talking about. It is not a "small little group" it is a community discussion on the relevant page for that topic, and it is most certainly not "mine" (I can't think of any civil rationale behind that descriptor any more than the "personal dislike" bit you started with). I'm sorry that you don't agree with Wikipedia policy, but your opinion in this is trumped by policy. That your editing is inconvenienced by consensus does not mean you can disregard it under such flimsy pretext. It's fine that you grow tired of repeating yourself; repeating the same fallacies doesn't make them more true with each repetition (and given the discussion on the guideline, I'm far from the only one that sees your rationale in this way). - Aoidh (talk) 06:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- Your argument is moot anyways as discussion on mosflag has reached a point where explicit language is now being developed to explain explicitly that this use is ok. That being said you keep rallying on about conlimited....but hundreds if not thousands of editors doing it on thousands of articles is clearly not a limited consensus. However the discussions on that guideline page which often contain less than 10 people can be. There is no wording in conlimited that indicates discussions on talk pages of guidlines hold more weight than discussions that occur elsewhere. Just that the widest consensus creation discussion possible is what is desired. -DJSasso (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Given your rather unique interpretations up to this point, I'm not exactly keen to take your word on an interpretation of anything, especially because the guideline still says what it does. It has been explained on that guideline talk page by other administrators how inaccurate your concept WP:CONLIMITED is, so you're welcome to take that up at the WP:CONLIMITED talk page if you want to change consensus, otherwise your argument is baseless and in direct opposition to Wikipedia policy. If, however, there is some wider discussion that you can point to, please do, but small discussions on article talk pages does not circumvent wider consensus. - Aoidh (talk) 02:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Your argument is moot anyways as discussion on mosflag has reached a point where explicit language is now being developed to explain explicitly that this use is ok. That being said you keep rallying on about conlimited....but hundreds if not thousands of editors doing it on thousands of articles is clearly not a limited consensus. However the discussions on that guideline page which often contain less than 10 people can be. There is no wording in conlimited that indicates discussions on talk pages of guidlines hold more weight than discussions that occur elsewhere. Just that the widest consensus creation discussion possible is what is desired. -DJSasso (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- That is exactly what I was talking about. It is not a "small little group" it is a community discussion on the relevant page for that topic, and it is most certainly not "mine" (I can't think of any civil rationale behind that descriptor any more than the "personal dislike" bit you started with). I'm sorry that you don't agree with Wikipedia policy, but your opinion in this is trumped by policy. That your editing is inconvenienced by consensus does not mean you can disregard it under such flimsy pretext. It's fine that you grow tired of repeating yourself; repeating the same fallacies doesn't make them more true with each repetition (and given the discussion on the guideline, I'm far from the only one that sees your rationale in this way). - Aoidh (talk) 06:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- I grow tired of repeating myself, so this will be the last time. The fact that literally thousands of articles representing dozens of wikiprojects ignore your small little group's attempts at turning their opinion into wikiwide policy is all the consensus I need to show. Yes, people who largely do not edit in the sporting sphere have made an attempt at Laying Down The LawTM. People who do edit in this sphere have disregarded it. Why? Because we believe that your viewpoint does not fit the needs of our readers. I'm sorry, but the opinion of a very small group of editors about what they believe the guideline should be does not trump the methodology used by hundreds, if not thousands, of editors since Wikipedia began. And it is obvious that these hundreds, if not thousands, of editors believe the current formatting benefits our readers. That's all the justification I need. And, unless you have a new argument to present, that is also my final word on the subject. Resolute 13:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Resolute, please cite this discussion, or I can only assume it doesn't exist, because the existance of articles that do not follow MoS is not evidence of anything other than the fact that they do not reflect consensus. If this is your reaction to after an entire discussion where your tone, your attacks, and your refusal to accept consensus has been what it is, your claim that it was "in vain" comes across as disingenuous. If all you've read is "do as I say", you need to re-read this discussion, and the discussion on the guideline page, because in what's becoming a pattern, what you're saying is wildly different than the actual case. Ravenswing, see the above discussion and also WP:CONLIMITED, which is a policy; your WikiProject cannot decide that the wider consensus found at the guideline is "out of touch" and can be ignored. - Aoidh (talk) 12:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed. I was going to comment on Aoidh's patronizing tone before, but decided to take one more crack at keeping this discussion productive. Clearly that was in vain. And yes, Aoidh, I can very easily show the existence of a wider reality. Reality is contained in the thousands of articles related to dozens of sports that use this style. I told you at the outset that I was willing to listen to arguments for change, but if the only argument you have is "do as I say", well, we're probably done here. Resolute 23:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- You know something? I am beginning to come to the belief that you are acting in bad faith here. You are not seeking a discussion about the language of the guideline or its applicability here, but to browbeat others into acquiescence of your POV, and I get the impression that what you mean by "discussion" is "This is the part where you all must agree with me." The reality of the situation, however, is that clear consensus here holds that displaying the flags is acceptable. We don't need to seek consensus in some other venue to support that POV; it already exists right here. As far as your repeated inferences that MOSFLAG is a rigid policy instead of the guideline that it is, I refer you to the alert at the top of the page: "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." (Policies, by contrast, carry the tag "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors must normally follow.")
- When it was pointed out how this page is against the relevant guideline, suddenly you shift tactics and it's the guideline that doesn't matter (despite Wikipedia policy saying otherwise). Strange how it's suddenly "my small little group" when consensus is against you, and you and a few other editors represent some "wider reality" than the guideline, yet you can't actually show that this "wider reality" exists except on a few talk pages where you and the same few editors push a POV against consensus. Guidelines exist to reflect consensus, not to force your desperate POV. - Aoidh (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Your guideline isn't inconsistent with how "some editors edit". It is inconsistent with widespread practice on Wikipedia. The use of the flags to denote nationality is widely used in articles related to hockey, soccer, basketball, tennis, boxing, cricket, and many other sports. I find it rather amusing that you suggest I go to the guideline's talk page to try and change that local consensus when reality already demonstrates that it is the regulars at that page is out of touch. The discussion you point to is nothing more than your small little group refusing to accept wider reality. Djsasso said it best on the other talk page - Guidelines exist to describe practice, not proscribe it. Resolute 14:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- WP:CONLIMITED disagrees with your outlook on the guideline. Saying my argument "flips against me" doesn't make it so, especially when you fail to explain what that is even supposed to mean. Wikipedia policy and the larger consensus both disagree with you (and no, the guideline is not a "local consensus", that would be this article's talk page). If there was a discussion about this in the "wider community" please provide a link to that (such as a policy page or large RfC?), but a few talk page discussions where the same WikiProject editors all reject the wider consensus is not a reflection that the guideline is "irrelevant". Commenting on your edit summary, I agree that the guideline is is inconsistent with how some editors edit, but the same can be said of people vandalizing articles; that is inconsistent with WP:VAND, that inconsistency does not negate consensus (I'm not calling your view vandalism, only pointing out that editors ignoring or not editing along guidelines and policies does not negate the consensus that guideline/policy represents). If you believe the guideline is out of touch with consensus, open a discussion to see if consensus has changed (which has been done). If the consensus has not changed (which, again, seems to be the case), that is an indication that consensus is against you, not that the consensus is irrelevant. - Aoidh (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- My interpretation is supported by people who actually edit in the field (so to speak), and which carries widespread support, as evidenced by the number of articles for which they are used. Ultimately, and as usual, your own argument flips against you. It appears that the small group on that guideline's talk page is the one trying to place a local consensus above the wider community. Your small group can reject codifying what is done in practice, but that won't change what is done in practice. All you are really doing is damning the guideline to irrelevance. Resolute 05:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Your interpretation of how WP:MOSFLAG should be applied is entirely inconsistent with the actual guideline; if your explanation was accurate, the current wording would have to be removed entirely because it would be next to meaningless, and it looks like that was proposed, and consensus is against that very thing, so what you're saying does not appear to be reflective of consensus. I'm not sure how your Owen Nolan example is supposed to support these flags, what that article does is exactly what I am suggesting; he represented Canada on an international level. Did these players represent their respective countries on an international level? If not, and these flags are simply being used to represent where they are from (which is exactly what "Nationality" means), then that is exactly what WP:MOSFLAG cites as inappropriate use of the flag icons. - Aoidh (talk) 04:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Honestly, at this point, I'm willing to stop the conversation. Aoidh seems quite willing to continue this tendentious "I'm right and all the rest of you are wrong" riff as long as anyone's willing to respond, and I'm happy to rest on our consensus. Shall we? Ravenswing 17:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- You are welcome to rest on consensus. Dragging this down to an argument about behavior so that a consensus can't form against them is a usual tactic employed by those with nothing of value to say to support their content; I'm not accusing anyone here of that, but this discussion meets that pattern all too well, and when that pattern unfolds on a talk page and turns into this kind of mud-slinging there's no way it will become a productive discussion about content. Given that despite multiple requests, not a single shred of evidence has been provided to support the idea that there is some larger consensus than the relevant guideline, and that's really the only straw that's being grasped at here, I'm not too concerned that these icons will stay. However, I'll wait until the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons concludes before opening a proper RfC and seeing how well consensus holds up when the actual content is being discussed instead of this current discussion which is about everything exact the content. A "consensus" that the guideline shouldn't apply isn't a consensus, and certainly not one "to rest on". If, however, a consensus determines that either the guideline should change or that this page meets the guideline, I will respect that completely, but for now the best thing to do for everyone, I think, is to wait and see how the discussion at the MoS page plays out. Until that happens, I'm not responding on this page, and if anyone has concerns about my personal behavior, I'd ask them to address that on my talk page, at WP:AN/I, or at an WP:RFC/U, not on this talk page where nothing can be done about it; according to DjSasso, commenting about me here like that would even violate WP:NPA. - Aoidh (talk) 03:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting. You mean to say that if the discussion at MOS:ICON does not result in what you want, you will forum shop another RFC? It becomes obvious that this is a crusade for you, and one thing I have learned is that zealots are not to be trusted. Resolute 04:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- See your talk page. - Aoidh (talk) 04:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting. You mean to say that if the discussion at MOS:ICON does not result in what you want, you will forum shop another RFC? It becomes obvious that this is a crusade for you, and one thing I have learned is that zealots are not to be trusted. Resolute 04:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- You are welcome to rest on consensus. Dragging this down to an argument about behavior so that a consensus can't form against them is a usual tactic employed by those with nothing of value to say to support their content; I'm not accusing anyone here of that, but this discussion meets that pattern all too well, and when that pattern unfolds on a talk page and turns into this kind of mud-slinging there's no way it will become a productive discussion about content. Given that despite multiple requests, not a single shred of evidence has been provided to support the idea that there is some larger consensus than the relevant guideline, and that's really the only straw that's being grasped at here, I'm not too concerned that these icons will stay. However, I'll wait until the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons concludes before opening a proper RfC and seeing how well consensus holds up when the actual content is being discussed instead of this current discussion which is about everything exact the content. A "consensus" that the guideline shouldn't apply isn't a consensus, and certainly not one "to rest on". If, however, a consensus determines that either the guideline should change or that this page meets the guideline, I will respect that completely, but for now the best thing to do for everyone, I think, is to wait and see how the discussion at the MoS page plays out. Until that happens, I'm not responding on this page, and if anyone has concerns about my personal behavior, I'd ask them to address that on my talk page, at WP:AN/I, or at an WP:RFC/U, not on this talk page where nothing can be done about it; according to DjSasso, commenting about me here like that would even violate WP:NPA. - Aoidh (talk) 03:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)