User talk:Dirtlawyer1/Archives/2012/September

Texas A&M claims THREE national championships

The guide you used as your source shows 1919, 1927, and 1939 as national championship claims. Please look at page 157 and 158 which highlights the accomplishments of the team for various years. Page 152 makes no mention of national championships (claimed or otherwise), it only mentions yardage by year. It doesn't even mention 1939. [1] Texas A&M 2012 Football

Accordingly, I'm reverting your changes. Buffs (talk) 03:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

PS, there are other verifiable, reliable sources if you want them, but I trust these will suffice Buffs (talk) 04:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Clearly you did not read my article talk page comments. Again, please refer to numbered page 150 of the 2012 Texas A&M football media guide (page 152 of the PDF document), where it clearly and unequivocally states "National Championship Teams . . . 1 . . . 1939." It also recognizes the 1917 and 1919 teams as unbeaten and untied, and the 1927 team as unbeaten with a tie. If you have other published sources, you need to produce them, and they need to be official A&M athletic department publications because those are the only ones that can authoritatively determine whether A&M claims any share of the 1919 and 1927 national championships. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, let's keep any further discussion on point on the article talk page. Anyone looking for an explanation of the outcome in the future is not likely to find it in my talk page archives. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to say, no hard feelings and I appreciate your diligence as well as cordial communications. Buffs (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Likewise. I have noted that you have done some outstanding work dealing with college logos and resolving Wikipedia copyright issues over the last several years. In my tangles with the usually well-intended, but often less-than-helpful image copyvio enforcement folks, I have learned just how difficult a task that can be----even when a proper interpretation of WP copyvio policy is on your side.

I do more than half of my Wikipedia work on college football-related articles, and as a University of Florida alumnus, I take a special interest in not only the Gators but the other SEC team articles, too. I have them watch-listed, and I am quick to revert any obvious vandalism. Sadly, at least as much damage is done to these articles by ostensible fans of the teams who do not appreciate that Wikipedia is not a fan blog, nor seem to understand the meaning of the words "neutral" or "objective." What can you say? My first reaction to the recent edits to the Aggies football article was that the changes represented more of the same.

Please let me know if I can help with the Aggies football article (or anything else). I'm one of the more active WP:CFB editors, and I know where most of the better on-line CFB references are buried. Having a well-written article with properly sourced footnotes for pretty much every sentence tends to discourage vandals and also tends to preclude and/or shorten arguments with random fans and would-be editors who don't quite get what Wikipedia is all about. WP:CFB has come a long way over the last three years, but it still has a long way to go before we can be proud of all 120+ Division I FBS team articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Then you might find this subuserpage useful...

FWIW, I hope you aren't too upset at the outcome of the game on 8 Sept ;-). I'll be there for the first Aggie SEC game. Buffs (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Buffs, I wish I could be there for the Aggies' SEC home opener. I've heard that College station is a spectacular college football town and that the Aggies students, alumni and fans can be relied upon to give visitors a genuinely warm welcome. That having been said, I'm afraid that the Ags are going to get the wrong impression about the level competition in the SEC. The Gators offense did not look that good against a MAC school; I can only imagine how they will look against A&M. Good luck to your boys. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You've heard correctly. Virtually EVERYONE I talk to after the game comments on how much fun the gameday experience is no matter the outcome of the game. As for whether or not FL brings the heat, I don't think anyone has any illusions that they are LSU or Alabama...enjoy the game. Buffs (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Bruce Hayes (swimmer) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Michael Gross

Tauna Vandeweghe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Green Valley, California

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Football navboxes

DL, what's up? Re: the college football team navboxes, the standard here is to have them autocollapse, e.g. open when alone, collapsed when coupled with other navboxes. I don't think they are so unwieldy that they must be collapsed even when alone, but that is debatable. What should not be debatable is 1) whatever we do for one team, we do for all and 2) a navbox should not be collapsed on its own template page, i.e. even if it's state is collapsed, that collapse should be "includeonly". Jweiss11 (talk) 04:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Weiss. Trust me, I understand the concepts of standardization and uniformity, and I'm with you most of the time on related debates. However, I also understand the concepts of good layout and design, cruft and garbage edits. Here are the basic points:

1. As a starting principle, no navbox that is bigger than two or three lines of text should ever be coded to automatically open at the bottom of an article. The bigger the navbox, the odder it looks in contrast to the surrounding standard Wikipedia formatting, and the bigger the navbox, the more the reader's eye is drawn to the gaping hole at the bottom of the page. I raised these specific objections when we were going through the navbox process, and they were never answered. It's a relatively minor point in the grand scheme of things, but it should be addressed as a basic point of good layout and design.

2. As presently coded, the "include only collapse" function seems to collapse the navbox everywhere except on the navbox template display page. It appears to be unnecessary and redundant coding whose sole function is to display an open navbox on the template page. Remind me again, why is it important that the navbox auto-open on its template display page? Given that the primary effect of the present coding is to auto-collapse these navboxes on the pages where they are transcluded (my principal concern), I'll leave the "include only collapse" coding as is—for the sake of peace in the family.

3. Finally, TTT's collapsible navbox coding option is a total garbage edit. It is completely unnecessary and serves only to clutter the navbox coding with an option that no one uses and virtually no one understands. You do get that the collapsible option is superseded by the "include only collapsed" coding, right? Look at either of the first two articles where the Gators football coach navbox is transcluded (i.e., Jack Forsythe, C. J. McCoy). Note that the navboxes are closed, without any of TTT's page-specific optional coding having been used. Moreover, there was absolutely zero consensus for TTT to add this garbage coding to any of the CFB navboxes, let alone every college sports navbox, and he is now in the process of adding the same coding clutter to the arts and literature navboxes throughout Wikipedia. This garbage coding should be deleted from every navbox to which it has been added. By making these Wikipedia-wide navbox coding changes without any supporting consensus, TTT is bucking for a major dust-up at ANI. I generally try to avoid spending large amounts of my time on the Wikipedia drama pages, but I will participate if necessary, if only to throw a handful of dirt on this really bad idea.

I'm going to leave the Florida Gators football coach navbox as is for 24 to 48 hours so you can play with TTT's coding and observe its interaction with the "include only collapse" function. After that, I'm deleting TTT's non-consensus coding again. If I had the moral fortitude to deal with the ensuing aggravation, I would file an RfC and request that this garbage coding be deleted everywhere. In this particular case, I've decided to spend my Wikipedia time fighting other battles for now. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The two or three line rule seems like a good idea in general, especially on bio pages. But on team pages, I don't find a bigger navbox to be so bad. Take a look at 1900 Michigan Wolverines football team, a well-developed article with a number of tables. Having the one program navbox there expanded strikes me as a nice utility, especially for jumping from season to season.

The point of the "include only collapse" function is that if you are going to the template page, you are there to look at the template, and likely there to inspect or even edit its content. I hate having to expand a template on the template page. There's no reason for it to be collapsed there. There's nothing else there for it to intrude upon.

The collapsible navbox coding option seems harmless, but likely useless as you lay out. I don't think there's any merit to an ANI or other drama there. Seems like an issue that no one had really weighed in on and he took a stab at being a bold and building something. That being said, it is all over the place, college, NFL, NBA, MLB, etc...hundreds, maybe a couple thousand navboxes for American sports at least. Template:Collapsible option was created in 2007 and is edit-protected with over 20,000 transclusions onto other templates. When I first started seeing it pop up on college sports navboxes, I assumed Tony was maybe moving on some site-wide standardization initiative. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

<slow simmer> Why are you reinserting TTT's collapsible option garbage? I have deleted it, again. Please do not reinsert it on these navboxes or anywhere else without a formal determination of consensus. Please advise if we need to have this out on every applicable project page for a determination of consensus by means of an RfC or otherwise. This should have been challenged and dealt with months ago, and it is now completely out of control.

I've searched for any discussion of the systematic insertion of the "collapsible option" template into entire classes of navboxes. I have not only found no determination of consensus on point, either at a Wikipedia-wide or WikiProject level, but I have found no discussion at all of the rapid expansion of its transclusion. No discussion, as in none at all. I have left a request for explanation on the template's talk page here. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

DL, sorry to annoy you with the reinsertion of the collapsible option code. My primary aim was to restore the include only collapse code, which indeed has a real utility, and I was just trying to accomplish that as quickly as possible. Thanks for the doing the research and kicking off the discussion about the collapsible option template. Jweiss11 (talk)

WikiProject Good articles (Participant Clean-Up)

Hello, you are receiving this message because you are currently a participant of WikiProject Good articles. Since the creation of the WikiProject, over 200 user's have joined to help review good article nominations and contribute to other sections of the WikiProject. Over the years, several of these users have stopped reviewing articles and/or have become inactive with the project but are still listed as participates. In order to improve communications with other participants and get newsletters sent out faster (newsletters will begin to be sent out monthly starting in October) all participants that are no longer active with the WikiProject will be removed from the participants list.

If you are still interested in being a participant for this WikiProject, please sign your user name here and please help review some articles so we can reduce the size of the backlog. If you are no longer interested, you do not need to sign your name anywhere and your name will be removed from the participants list after the deadline. Remember that even if you are not interested at this time, you can always re-add your name to the list whenever you want. The deadline to sign your name on the page above will be November 1, 2012. Thank-you. 13:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Update for: WikiProject Good articles (Participant Clean-Up)

Sorry for having to send out a second message but a user has brought to my attention that a point mentioned in the first message should be clarified. If user's don't sign on this page, they will be moved to an "Inactive Participants" list rather then be being removed from the entire WikiProject. Sorry for any confusion.--Dom497 (talk)15:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

David Berkoff (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Abington, Pennsylvania

David Wharton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Abington, Pennsylvania

Zachary Zorn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kenneth Walsh

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

A page you started has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Ken Merten, Dirtlawyer1!

Wikipedia editor I dream of horses just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

It's always nice to see articles written by people who know what they're doing. I'll add it to Wikiprojects for you.

To reply, leave a comment on I dream of horses's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

A page you started has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating David Perkowski, Dirtlawyer1!

Wikipedia editor I dream of horses just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Another good article. :)

To reply, leave a comment on I dream of horses's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Talkback

Hello, Dirtlawyer1. You have new messages at I dream of horses's talk page.
Message added 15:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.