User talk:Dirtlawyer1/Archives/2013/May

32-team bracket with byes?

Normally I'd be happy to help but work and weekend commitments (not to mention Mother's day) mean I will have very little time to work on something like this until after Memorial Day. Sorry --Trödel 20:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey, you're still editing like crazy on wikipedia!

This is the first I've logged in to wikipedia with my account in a couple of years or so... Good to see you're still going strong! :) Go Gators! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ufgatorman (talk • contribs) 01:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, UFGatorman. Good to see you have turned up. There's still plenty of UF work to be done! Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Why are you so quick to ban?

I added someone to Category:American columnists and Category:American women journalists both at essentially the same time (actually the first one first). There is no movement to removed Category:American women journalists, a category that has existed for over 3 years (I can't figure out how long because of its rename). If people do not like it, they can propose it be deleted, but it makes no sense to try to ban someone for adding an article to it. I have tried to improve wikipedia. and people seem to just want to attack me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

JPL, I have no desire to attack you, nor do I want to ban you, but you need to walk away from this hot topic for a while. Tempers are running hot, and there is the added stress of rather harsh outside criticism. It would be far more judicious on your part to edit other categories, unrelated to those under discussion (and unrelated to gender-based diffusion). It's a damn small temporary concession to make, and I am sure you can find other categories to improve for a few weeks until this all blows over. Be smart: keep your head down. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The freeze is over

It's May 15, so that means the discussions we started last month at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded can be closed, and the changes can be made. FYI, there are also a great many new discussions in the last week or two that may be of interest to you pbp 14:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yup. I haven't gone anywhere, PBP, and I've been watching the talk pages: there are way too many ill-considered proposed adds, and not enough proposed deletes. We need to get back to forcing swaps for any new adds. We still need to prioritize and get the total numbers under 10,000 for the expanded list.

I would suggest that we be cautious in our first round of post-freeze closes. Let's stick to unanimous decisions with five or more !votes, or at least those with five or six !votes and a 75-80% margin in support of the proposed action.

Also, it's time to manually archive all of the extraneous stuff that's accumulated, including the now expired RfC (I suggest you leave it on the Arts talk page, but archive it on the main Expanded talk page). I'm also going to be moving pretty quickly tonight to reorganize the talk page generally, with all proposed deletes, adds and swaps at the top of the talk page, broken out by topic list subsections, with links to those Vital Article sublists. We also need some explanatory/introductory text at the top of the page, if you want to take a stab at drafting something. Needs to explain the current state of the Vital Articles project, where we are for adds and drops, and the basic procedure for proposing, discussing and !voting.

I am going to continue resisting stand-alone adds until we get the total under 10,000. Until then, proposed swaps should force the deletion of lower priority topics. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I echo DL's concerns, and will be looking at the proposed changes with considerable interest. I am strongly against a sudden blizzard of changes because of the date, and agree that the bigger picture must be discussed. Jusdafax 18:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have archived between 80 and 90 KBs of text. Can you believe out of all that text, there were less than 10 changes that had a requisite amount of support? (Yes, I made those changes). Many more KBs of text are only 1 or 2 Support or Oppose votes away from consensus (there are a lot of 3-0, while that isn't consensus by the standards we're using, it seems a waste to archive them and have to start all over again) pbp 21:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• PBP, thank you for doing the manual archiving. Calling the question on 5–0 votes is okay (don't forget to update the running totals), but don't archive any open discussions that appear to be viable. There's nothing wrong with having an open discussion for 30, 60, 90 days until that particular discussion reaches critical mass. Looks like we've picked up two or three new participants (and at least one of the original project participants who has come back with a vengeance). If we get JDF !voting, and pick up three or four more, we could easily have 8 to 12 voting in each discussion. That would be a worthy goal. Let's start thinking where we want to place WikiProject talk page notices this coming weekend, and other places for a wave of new Vital Articles invitations. I would hope we are ready and organized to welcome some new editors with open arms this weekend. We can even remind Betty Logan and SchroCat to come back and finish the movie discussions now that the RfC has expired. We should not exclude anyone who wants to participate in a collegial manner, but we should seek out knowledgeable editors with a wide range of interests.

There are a number of admins and other long-term editors who have various hard science disciplines listed on their user pages; they would be good candidates for personal invitations to help cull some of the bloated science lists. But most of all, we need to get the pop culture crap under control, and we're going to need to exercise some discipline instead of adding another half dozen rappers, etc. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Interested in creating article?

Hey DL, Rikster2 and I are just about to finish up the 2013 college basketball players of the year articles. When we do, there will only be 1 remaining red link on 2013 NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans: UF's Erik Murphy, who was an AP Honorable Mention AA. Any interest in creating an article for him, even if it's just a stub? Jrcla2 (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me, Jrcla. Sure, I would be happy to create the Erik Murphy article. Looks like there are plenty of sources to support his notability, and enough material to create a decent Start-Class article. What are Murphy's current NBA draft prospects? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks. His NBA Draft prospect is mid to late second round pick, but that's best case scenario. It will be unsurprising to not hear his name called, but if it is, he will probably go in the 40s or 50s. There's enough interest in him that teams will make sure they do their homework on him before passing him by, but in all likelihood he'll need lady luck on his side that night to hear his name called. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Jrcla, can you recommend a good Start-Class bio for a college basketball player which I can use as a template for the new Erik Murphy article? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The one I just created today, Stan Okoye, might be good to check out. It's got the basketball biography infobox (as opposed to the NCAA athlete infobox, which is now inappropriate for Murphy since he graduated). Obviously the prose would be up to your editorial discretion, including length of the article. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Womens'/Lady Bears

Hey, DL: Although I may be stating the obvious here, the link without the "women's" in it causes it to redlink on Florida Gators women's basketball.
Ben S. Henderson (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, Ben. For whatever reason, it showed as blue when I previewed the edit. In any event, the problem was not the absence of the word "women's", but the fact that the redirect used a hyphen not an ndash. Note that the correct article title is 2011–12 Baylor Lady Bears basketball team. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Strange, it seems to have fixed itself. It's blue now. I think I see what the problem was. Thanks for your help! Ben S. Henderson (talk) 01:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi

I wonder if the César Cielo article is able to be elected as GA. I put everything I could find about him. Perhaps lacking either minimal detail yet, but I think the article would have condition to be GA. Just do not know about the English used in this article, if it is 100% correct, because my English is not perfect. Rauzaruku (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, Rauzaruku. I just looked over the article for the first time after seeing your talk page note above. Someone has clearly spent a lot of time adding some real substance to the article, and I think it has strong GA potential. It will need some minor English grammar and idiom clean-up, and a few other tweaks. I am not a GA reviewer, but I have been through the process several times on behalf of articles I have written. If you want, I would be happy to pre-review and make some appropriate tweaks to the article before you submit it for GA review. I should have time to spend with the article this weekend. In the mean time, I suggest you review the Wikipedia:Good article criteria, and make whatever changes you want to make. Let me know. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd love if you could help me. I can not write English very wonderful, because it is not my native language. You can make the changes you want, and if you propose the article for GA I would greatly appreciate it.Rauzaruku (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, don't need to propose the article. I'll do it, at the right time. Or do you think it's useful to submit now? Rauzaruku (talk) 04:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Foxworth

Hi there, Dirt. I've made some progress with further research for the Foxworth article, and I'm hoping to have that ready for you this week. Meanwhile, I was wondering if you were still planning to review and post either my NFLPA section or one similar to it in the meantime? Just curious, and I'll be in touch soon! Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Bridges

The thing today with movies buildings and bridges. In the old days a movie like Gone With the Wind or snow white, or a building like Empire State (or the Pyramids) could be the "biggest" for decades. Now things are getting over took very quick. Empire State biggest for 40 years. Taipei 101 biggest for 6 years. Jurassic Park was biggest for about 4 years. Bridges are the same. My instincts say the Golden Gate Bridge is more vital than the Danyang–Kunshan Grand Bridge or Governor Albert D. Rosellini Bridge—Evergreen Point, just look at how much is written and how many languages they're in too. Cultural impact/interest AND length probably should play a part in deciding. But it's not easy, and we'll both have to think about it, I'll get back to you. Carlwev (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar Awarded!

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	Awarded for your outstanding motivational skills and organizational coding at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded, where you have made a huge difference. Your talents as a calming influence and mediator are also notable and welcome. For this page and your work elsewhere, you have earned my deep respect and gratitude! Jusdafax 23:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, JDF. All stars graciously accepted. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Voting on moving from one section to another

I honestly think we don't really need 5 supports or whatnot to move somebody from one subsection of VA/E to another. It's not like we're adding or deleting anything. Do you think we could get away with 3 or 4? pbp 16:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC) PBP, probably not, because it's as much about internal list management as much as anything else. Nevertheless, I would let the "moves" go full cycle. They don't affect the overall total, and the move discussions may actually get participants to look at other sublists they otherwise haven't. Those are my thoughts. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dirtlawyer1. You have new messages at Purplebackpack89's talk page.
Message added 01:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

pbp 01:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to "In the News" candidates page

May I suggest if you have a spare moment or two to join me at the In the News feature, which is published on the Front page? We may not always agree, but I think your grasp of world events and history is considerable and would add much to the discussion. A word of warning: the feature is substantially higher profile than the Vital Articles pages, and as such is a periodic hotbed of rhetoric, some of it surprisingly uncivil, but I strongly suspect you would enjoy some of the comments and the community. I'd suggest, if you join in, to pick your battles. The ITN candidate's page is WP:ITN/C. If time or inclination forbid involvement, I completely understand. With best wishes, and thanks, Jusdafax 00:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

"We may not always agree?" Really, JDF, I was under the distinct impression that we agree on a surprising majority of topics and approaches to wiki-governance. Glass half full, half empty, I suppose. LOL In all events, I am flattered by and grateful for your invitation to participate in ITN. I am trying to pick my battles already, at least in the sense of what I have time to contribute. I expect that the Vital Articles project will continue to require some nurturing for some time, and feel that I am neglecting some of my previous Wikipedia priorities. That having been said, change is good, trying new things is invigorating, so I will check out ITN at your suggestion. As for heated rhetoric, I still bear the recent metaphorical scars of some of that, so I need only a small reminder to be cautious. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: WP:FOOTY

Hi mate, thanks for your message last night. I appreciate your suggestions, and I will have a word with User:GiantSnowman about the issues I raised. I do believe, however, that the scope of WP:FOOTY has become out of control. I have no doubt that we could probably get articles about football in the UK under control, but as for foreign articles, which are often monitored by users who also maintain the articles on foreign language wikis too, they seem to be a law unto themselves, believing that they can apply the same rules across all wikis. In all honesty, I'm considering leaving WP. It used to be like a full-time job for me, but now it's becoming more trouble than it's worth. I love the project, and I would love to see it succeed, but the policy of allowing any Tom, Dick or Harry to contribute is bound to be its downfall. Cheers. – PeeJay 13:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ryan Allen (American football) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ryan Nassib may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Urban Meyer may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Naming conventions for American swimmers

You seem to be trying to impose a convention that the derivative nicknames American swimmers are known by should be included only in the article title and infobox, but not in the opening sentence of the article. If you look at a few examples elsewhere in Wikipedia - e.g. Greg Louganis, Carl Lewis, Mike Tyson, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter (just to name a few) - you'll see that the convention you're trying to impose is very out of step with the usual Wikipedia practice. There's good reason why the usual practice exists. Wikipedia is read by people of all backgrounds and cultures. Nicknames which seem like obvious derivatives to Americans are not obvious to people from different cultural backgrounds. The general Wikipedia practice helps to make things clear to people who have a different cultural understanding. 42.61.219.221 (talk) 07:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Where has the "consensus" you claim exists in swimming and golf articles that derivative nicknames should not be included in the opening sentence come from? From looking at an (admittedly limited) number of articles in these areas, the only editor I've come across who's trying to impose this is you. If I'm missing something here and a genuine discussion involving others which has led to consensus has taken place, please enlighten me. Even if there is such a consensus in a small number of areas, I still think it's reasonable for me to question and suggest re-examining this in the light of the wider practice in most other areas of Wikipedia. If you think the derivative nicknames are being overused to the point of redundancy (which is debateable), then it makes more sense to take them out of the infobox rather than the opening sentence. If you look at articles in most areas of Wikipedia (beyond American swimmers and golfers), you'll see that nicknames noted in infoboxes are not usually derivative nicknames but nicknames very different from the given name (e.g. "The California Condor" in Biondi's case). As you can see, I'm not edit-warring right now but attempting to engage and bring up what I consider to be a reasonable point with regards to this issue. Simply claiming that consensus exists for American swimmers and golfers even though it's out of step with what's done in most other areas of Wikipedia is not reasonable grounds for ignoring the substance of the point I'm making here. 42.61.219.221 (talk) 05:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Florida Gators women's lacrosse

I saw this edit, which was somewhat odd. I add this option to over a thousand templates a week and your decision to reverse this was the first in months.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Tony, I hate to be contentious, but I raised the issue of this being an unnecessary addition to navboxes on the template's talk page last year, and only one editor queried me about the objection. Frankly, this template has become a bit of rarely used boilerplate coding that should only be added to navbox template when it is required; instead, we have added it to thousands of templates where it is not used and will never be used. That was a mistake, and it should have been widely discussed among the affected projects before it was added to every navbox on Wikipedia. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)