User talk:Dirtlawyer1/Archives/2012/December

Sports seasons

In the talk page thread WT:MOSNUM#Sports seasons: 1967–68, not 1967/68, I am the original poster using 142.205.241.254 and also the person posting from 50.100.189.5. I'd just like to say two things:

1. Thank you for changing the MOSNUM to authorize "1967–68 season".
2. Your final comments in the talk thread read as though you mistook my intent. I was not calling for thousands of articles to be changed; I was calling for the MOSNUM to be made consistent with existing practice. I am happy enough with the change you made. The difference with my proposal was that I was also trying to make it consistent with existing articles that used the minority style 1967/68, which it previously required. That's all.

--50.100.189.5 (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I know you weren't advocating that. I was determined that the final MOS provision must recognize that there was only one consensus way to denote a split-year sports season, a notation, I might add, on which every sports WikiProject unanimously agrees! The last thing I wanted was to have any ambiguity that the revised MOS provision somehow authorized the slash alternative for sports articles. Don't need it, don't want it, don't want someone to use it as the basis for starting an argument down the road . . . . The revised MOS provision requires the dash format for sports seasons, and permits the slash notation for other subjects, but only where reliable sources also use it regarding the particular subject. That should limit its use to a very small number of articles. Mind you, I'm not going to start wandering around reformatting obscure articles like the 1961/62 Yogi Bear Show. That's not my problem. LOL

BTW, if you know your way around Wikipedia as well you seem to, don't you think it's about time to register and get yourself a proper Wikipedia account with a username? If and when you do register, stop back here and introduce yourself. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Having taken a brief look around it seems you might appreciate a direct message. The YEAR and SLASH parts of the manual of style have a conflict that i came to by reading the page history of a tv show episode list. From this section heading it appears to have origins in sports. Your comment i posted after says the discussion was 2 weeks long but the oldest timestamp in that particular discussion is only 9 days old and at the time of your comment was about 7 days old. Clearly you are suggesting there is more to it somewhere else. I usually have nothing to do with manual of style editing but what i found basically said dashes are the only thing to be used (YEAR) and slashes are the appropriate character to use (SLASH) and both cite sports seasons spanning calendar years as prime examples of appropriate useage. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 09:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your message, D&L. The discussion thread at WT:MOSNUM#Sports seasons: 1967–68, not 1967/68 grew out of the modification of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Longer periods by one regular MOS discussion participant which required the use of the slash in situations such as a sports or television seasons that overlap two calendar years when the seasons are twelve or fewer months in length. One or two MOS editors thought this was a good idea, and cited a single English style guide for authority. The primary problem with this little innovation was that it is in conflict with near universal usage in Wikipedia regarding sports articles, and would have required the move of tens of thousands of stable article titles in the face of the overwhelming consensus of actual use. Furthermore, requiring the slash conflicts with the most common usage in the real world, too, where examples such as "2012–13 basketball season" and "2009–10 academic year" are overwhelmingly more common than "2012/13 basketball season" or "2009/10 academic year." The talk page discussion supported the use the dash over the slash when describing sports seasons by about four to one.

The discussion thread at WT:MOSNUM#Sports seasons: 1967–68, not 1967/68 was open from October 29 to November 13 (a period of fifteen days). I modified Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Longer periods on November 13, and closed the talk page discussion thereafter. The intent of the modified MOS provision is to require the use of the dash in sports seasons, but to permit the use of the slash in other situations where reliable sources use the slash, such as government fiscal years. If reliable sources do not use the slash in a particular situation, the dash should be used. As a result of your message, I have tweaked WP:SLASH to reflect that consensus. Please let me know if any of this requires further explanation, D&L, because I'm sure it has the potential to cause confusion for anyone arriving late at the party. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any overt conflicts now. TV seasons and sports seasons tend to follow the lead of each other. Some places have tv as an example and others will use sports. Both frequently span calendar years. Seeing two people basically edit warring over the manual of style instructions was a bit entertaining, especially since what each was using as evidence supported their stance. They both were right and yet in opposition to each other. It is a bit like that printing of the KJV Bible which says "Thou fhalt commit adultery." You just know there is something not right about it but it really does say.... I was pretty sure i understood the intent but equally sure the intent was not reflected in the instructions and examples i was seeing and which were being cited by the parties on that episode list i had read. As one more familiar with the discussions i brought it to your attention and you appear to have addressed it. I could have just done it myself but for not being involved in the discussions it might have appeared hostile or too bold and there was the possibility that there was more to it i had not found and my understanding of the intent could have been incorrect.
Or in short, yeah it now is fine and is not confusing. But... IF i were to find a source which made use of a + instead of a – or a / .... ;) delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 05:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

David Molk

Feel free to update or tweak David Molk. I just was reverting and revising. An editor eliminated most of the WP:LEAD. I think that it should summarize the main body and reverted the changes with minor modifications.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that; that's why I asked. The lead could be pared/balanced, but it's a Good Article already, so longer leads are expected. The other editor is not a newbie, and he should know better. Typical NFL bias; we can have three paragraphs on relatively meaningless pre-draft measurables, but we can't have more than two sentences about the All-American college career. Goofy.

I'm about ready to take a break from the U.S. Olympic swimmer bios I've been working on since the Olympics. I'll probably start chewing on college All-American bios again during the Christmas break. I'll take a critical look at the Molk article then. In the mean time, it's a Good Article and it looks just fine the way it is. It certainly doesn't need the meat axe treatment. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I just left him a note that you would take your hand at it. He is unaware that the WP:LEAD is suppose to summarize the rest of the article and said on my talk page that it was a problem that the stuff in the LEAD was repeated in the main body. Please jump in. The sooner the better before we forget about it. I.e., while it is on the stove now would be good.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

You beat me to the punch. I left Ryecatcher a talk page note immediately after yours. He seems like a reasonable guy. I'll sort it out in the next 24. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Fellas, if you're going to label an article as being a GA, you ought o proofread it first. There were a multitude of disjointed things (like sentences in the present tense about his college career which ended over a year ago) and info in the lead that was not appropriate for the lead -- besides the fact that almost all of it gets repeated elsewhere in the article's subsections. Seriously. Go back and read the article, because it doesn't appear anyone has considering the way it was. Thanks. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

RC, I didn't label the article as anything. It went through Good Article review per WP:Good Article, and was promoted to GA status. While I readily recognize that the article had noticeable imperfections, it needs a scalpel, not a meat axe. Per WP:LEAD, the lead section is supposed to summarize the contents of the article, and that means that major elements should not be ignored. Tony writes a much more detailed lead than I do; I prefer to summarize and touch on what I believe to the major points of an article, including representative career high points of a sports bio. As I suggested, let me chew on it for 24 hours, and I suspect that I can gin up something with which everyone can abide. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Got it. ;-) Ryecatcher773 (talk) 07:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dirtlawyer1. You have new messages at AutomaticStrikeout's talk page.
Message added 01:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

College baseball question

Can you head over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College baseball#All-America players question to address a question I've raised concerning All-American college baseball players? Thank you. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi DL. I have proposed a new idea on the criteria we will consider for which College Baseball All-Americans should be included in the navboxes versus those who shouldn't. I'd like to try to gain a more firm consensus before moving ahead with the navboxes' creation, so when you get a chance your input would be welcome. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Mike Nesbitt

If you have a moment, please take another look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Nesbitt (American football). Numerous sources have been added to the article since you left your comment. These additional sources may or may not lead you to change your mind, but you should be aware the article has changed significantly. Cbl62 (talk) 01:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Starting pitchers vs lineups notability

I thought it would be more constructive to move this off of the AfD. I don't really have a large stake in the outcome, other than to try and help facilitate a consensus other than "no consensus", and to make sure the !votes are not really just votes. It's fine to follow guidelines, as long as everyone is aware that we are not obligated to follow guidelines if "it makes sense". It's also fine to ignore them, but it seems disingenuous if similar instances are ignored. OTHERSTUFF is fine, but it says neither that we should always follow precedent, nor should precendent always be ignored. It should be given slightly more consideration given the FL precedent of the pitchers list. I totally agree with your comment that we are all volunteers, and AfDs are full of drive-by participants; however, that seems to lend more weight to discuss this in a more stable WikiProject environment with an assumingly bigger-picture vision. Of course, the general WP community may still ultimately disagree. If by any chance the two of us could reach a consensus offline, it could help steer the AfD.—Bagumba (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

B, I'm happy to trade some email on point. I'm running out the door to a client appointment, and it may be later this evening before I get a chance to respond. FYI, I have already suggested on the nominator's talk page that he withdraw the AfD and resubmit separate AfDs for the individual lists. I was pretty sure that the Yankees list would satisfy the GNG standards even before someone posted links. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless you are wary of stalkers (or other factors), I'm fine with discussing here. Certainly GNG would make it moot, but the issue seems to be inherent notability of lineups in general (similar to the pitcher FLs) as opposed to GNG notability of select lineups.—Bagumba (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

re: opening day list

Hello, Dirtlawyer1. You have new messages at CRRaysHead90's talk page.
Message added 22:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you

Thanks for that sorely-needed bit of critical thinking. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, AHC, I hope someone will actually read it. Too often, Wikipedia editors simply ignore any comment that exceeds a three-sentence paragraph. I can provide water, but I have not the power to make anyone drink. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Kudos seconded. I did read it all. I concur with you there are too many TL;DR types. I thank you for your analysis. You were able to see serious problems in the policy. Unfortunately, ArbCom has not been able to recognize the serious problems their policy has. This isn't isolated to this event. There are a whole host of ArbCom issues that have incompetence as a contributing underlying cause. To me though, the most significant problem with this event isn't that an e-mail was leaked. Most comments everywhere have been focusing on whether it was a leak or not, whether it was justified or not, whether it was acceptable given subsequent events, etc. Your analysis shines a very bright light on the fact that this is muddled ground. The more serious issue, which is quite definitive, is that a sitting arbitrator lied to the committee at least twice, and maintained the lie for nearly two weeks. This isn't idle speculation. It was confirmed by another sitting arbitrator. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Hammersoft. I intensely dislike the drama boards because of the sniping and generally low level of commentary that often materialize in the midst of controversies that require serious and informed discussion for resolution. I will not offer an opinion on how Elen has handled this matter, and I will leave that to other editors. My post on the ArbCom motions page will probably be my only contribution to the discussion. At this stage, the controversy does not lack for the expression of a full range of opinions on point, and I've added the analysis that I thought was lacking regarding the actual policy. Beyond that, I suspect that the immediate controversy and its underlying cause will both be resolved in the pending ArbCom elections. The "crisis," such as it is, exists mostly in the minds of overwrought editors who should listen more and bang their protest drums less loudly. This ain't Watergate. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

And again for that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a real weakness on my part, AHC. I hate to see anyone taken to task based on a misunderstanding or mistake, especially editors who are doing their best to make positive contributions. We can all get jaded and hardened based on the environment, and get a little trigger-happy as a result. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dirtlawyer1. You have new messages at Sphilbrick's talk page.
Message added SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Not directed specifically at you, but I think you may be interested.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the head's up, SPhilbrick. I'm happy to jump into the discussion if needed, or if I can contribute constructively. Otherwise, let me know if you think my presence would be helpful. Looks like it's mostly resolved at this point. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it is largely resolved, but someone may decide to AfD the articles. Your subject expertise will be helpful if that occurs.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 02:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Secret ^account is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy holidays from me as well. Secret ^account 16:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Bergeronp

Probably a sock - can you look into it? I'd do it myself but am leaving in, like, two minutes on an all-day drive - JohnInDC (talk) 15:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• John, I'm not sure based on current evidence, but I am watching the account's behavior. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)