Jump to content

User talk:Dirtlawyer1/Archives/2015/September

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Can I ask you a couple of questions?

I saw your comments at WP:Articles for deletion/2021 World Championships in Athletics. Can I ask you a couple of questions?

  1. I am not aware of any special purpose notability guidelines that apply to upcoming big sporting events, like the Olympics, or FINA. Are there any?
  2. If there aren't special purpose guidelines, then it would be WP:GNG that applied, wouldn't it? Well if it is GNG that applies, then wouldn't it be the quality of the references that mattered, and what they substantiated, not the number of years between now and when the event actually takes place? In the case of the 2021 World Championships in Athletics:
    1. The first time an American city hosted the event;
    2. Only the second time the organizers had skipped the regular bid consideration process;
    3. The reason why the regular bid process was ignored has not really been explained;
    4. Officials from other cities that thought they had a chance to have their bid judged the winning bid are not happy the bidding process was skipped.
The four points above are all well documented, so I am curious why the article shouldn't sail past GNG.
With regard to the Aquatic event -- Budapest was announced as the host city in 2013, and then dropped, when Guadalahara dropped out of hosting the 2017 event, and Budapest was pushed forward to take its place. Isn't that well enough documented to satisfy GNG?

I did write that I thought the AFD on the aquatic event was trivial and time-wasting. I ask these questions because, if you are correct, and my comment truly went too far, that would mean there is something you know, that I don't know, and, if that is the case, I would appreciate you sharing it, so I don't make the same mistake again. Geo Swan (talk) 06:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Time to shine

Template talk:Respell#Template-protected edit request on 1 September 2015. Alakzi (talk) 07:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Alakzi: Getting a late start today . . . where are we with this? Breifly reviewed the template talk page discussion. Is this going to be controversial in any way? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

It's already been rejected by someone who's got an axe to grind with me, so there's no point. Alakzi (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

CFBDW

Hey I noticed you made an edit to the College football data warehouse page. What is going on with it?UCO2009bluejay (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

  • The CFDW link has been hijacked (again) by some nasty redirect marketing people. I clicked on the CFDW main page link from the Wikipedia article last night, and the hijacker's redirect loop hung up my browser and computer for 10+ minutes until I rebooted. Aggravating as f---. This is not the first time this has happened to CFDW; it's a great site and CFB historical reference, but they really need to invest a little money in website security. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Okay good to know thanks.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 22:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
On that note how good is this site.[1] I have found a few irregularities but I also have noticed that with CFBDW as well. The glowing difference would be in 2004 they have OU as 13-0 instead of 12-1 and 05 USC as 0-13 instead of 0-1.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Question about merge requests

The discussion about the "Dygert/Dygart" person, and the possibility of a merge reminded me of an issue that I have been wanting to resolve for a while. I know we usually have only ONE page for college sports teams, regardless of the mascots. Arkansas Tech Wonder Boys and Arkansas Tech Golden Suns are two separate pages that should be merged, (with the cats, etc.) Since I haven't requested a merge before, I was wondering if you could give me some advice on this matter.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@UCO2009bluejay and Jweiss11: Yes, they need to be merged for consistency. Does either page have any particularly active editors? If so, courtesy and common sense would would suggest that they should be consulted to ensure a smooth transition and a minimum of fuss over the merge. I would suggest that you prepare a two- or three-sentence merge proposal in your sandbox, and then ping Jweiss and me when you're ready for a quick review. In the mean time, start an informal conversation with any editors who have done significant work on the articles in the last 6 to 12 months, including the article creators. Hopefully, there will be no opposition; the CFB and CBB regulars will, of course, back the merge. Let me know. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I have a request draft in my original sandbox [2]. The Arkansas Tech pages are mainly updated by an IP. I typically don't bother talking to them because the IP's change. The most involved editor is User:Msjraz64. I have worked with this individual in the past and found the person competent and reasonable however, he/she hasn't edited since May 7-8.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 03:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
@UCO2009bluejay: Your merge proposal looks good to me: I would not change a word of it. Leave messages for the article contributors you've identified; most folks just want to be consulted, and that should help reduce any opposition. I suggest you give them four or five days to talk to you after leaving messages on their talk pages, and then start the merge discussion on one article page with a link to the discussion on the other. Ping me we when you're ready to start. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
@Dirtlawyer1: I have begun the merge request on talk:Arkansas Tech Wonder Boys#Merge discussion.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Name order in references

Hi Dirtlawyer1,

Your reasoning is definitely sound. However, because the vast majority of articles that I have seen use 'last, first' order, and especially because even Wikipedia's own citation tools format the names that way (by default) as well, I merely thought I was following established Wikipedia protocol, and it honestly never occurred to me to do it any other way, whether alphabetized or not. I just wanted to let you know it was not a conscious decision or preference on my part. :) 1980fast (talk) 04:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

  • @1980fast: Not a problem. The "Cite" templates were designed with multiple options for multiple purposes, including their use for both footnotes and bibliographies. Too often, users of the templates have forgotten those options and their purposes, and assume that there is only one proper format. That's one of the reasons I usually do not use the templates in articles where I am the primary author. That said, when any article like the Ryan Lochte article already uses them, I do not replace them, but I do work for consistency in their formatting, including consistent American style dates, italicized publication names, author names, etc., so that the footnotes are consistent with the text of the article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorting through Persondata

I plan to change my vote to oppose the immediate deletion of all persondata, but I do think some of it needs to go, if only to make it easier to sift through what's left. We can't reasonably expect editors to manually sift through 1,200,000 articles in a timely fashion. What are your thoughts on the following groups to delete? This isn't a proposal (which is why I'm taking it here and not the village pump), just trying to gauge your opinion so we can come up with something that works for all involved.

  • Delete all instances of Persondata where nothing other than the name is present. Rationale: It's fairly obvious that there's no worthwhile information in a persondata template that tells us nothing other than someone existed, in my opinion.
  • Delete all instances of Persondata where only the name and date/place of birth/death are present. Rationale: It's unlikely much of this data wasn't automatically transferred over. It is definitely possible there were conflicts or errors, and I agree there could be some data loss here, but the data lost is worth less than the time that we would have to divert from converting data that for-sure needs to make the jump (alternative name and short description). The economic side of me doesn't think the loss-benefit pans out when you consider how much time would be wasted verifying that these relatively simple parameters made the jump when the vast majority did.

Thoughts and any other suggestions? What about the style of date of birth/death; would data have not been transferred if the data wasn't formatted a certain way? We could further filter that second suggestion to only remove those that were formatted properly if that were the case. ~ RobTalk 21:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The descriptions were transferred by a bot, so you could change the first condition to "nothing other than the name and/or the description is present"; and amend the second one accordingly. Alakzi (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Good to know. I could handle a bot to remove just those with names and descriptions, which would be uncontroversial if we're sure that all descriptions transferred. What's your opinion on that Dirtlawyer? That would remove a sizable amount of these and leave you with a list that requires clear attention. We could save dates/places of birth/death for later, if we handle those by bot at all. As a side note, Alakzi, do you know how best to obtain a list of all pages that transclude Persondata in plain text? AWB will only load 25,000 at a time, and it will always be the same 25,000, which is an issue. ~ RobTalk 21:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Rob, I get what you're proposing, and I think it would be useful in focusing efforts on those remaining instances of Persondata which still contain usable information that should be transferred to Wikidata. I think the first proposition is pretty clear: if the Persondata name matches the article title, and there's nothing else, remove the Persondata template from the article. The second proposition is trickier: I have found an error/conflict rate of 10+% for birth and death dates, and a higher error/conflict rate for places of birth and death. Frankly, I think we really need a second opinion from people with the skills to deal with these issues. You may want to review the comments made by Francis Schonken in the previous discussion, and start a side discussion with The Rambling Man -- he made some comments in the pending RfC which serve to confirm my intuitive reaction in these matters. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
What's your observed error rate for "short description"? ~ RobTalk 21:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Harder to say, but the error rate for short description is probably around the 10% suggested above -- but with a caveat: it appears that nothing has ever been updated or changed after the first pass of the automated transfer bot. Further caveat: it also appears nothing -- no data of any kind -- has been transferred/updated since October/November 2014. If true, that may mean that there is something like seven or eight months worth of added/updated Persondata -- from October/November 2014 to June 2015 -- which has never been transferred. It would really be nice to talk directly with the guys who engineered the previous automated transfers, and ask them these questions, with no filtering interlocutor. Dirtlawyer1 (talk)

For another uncontroversial task, what's your thoughts on transferring data that has only name, birth date, and death date if birth date and death date are both exactly contained within either {{Birth date}}/{{Death date}} or {{Birth date and age}}/{{Death date and age}} somewhere in the article? Transferring from those templates would seem to be at least as easy as from Persondata (if not easier, as the format is uniform in the templates), and finding the information is easy when it's contained within another template. This would not touch anything with birth/death places, since those are messier. ~ RobTalk 02:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Keeping in mind that the idea is to transfer as much usable information from Persondata to Wikidata as possible, I'm certainly willing to consider it. If there are no birth and death places in the Persondata, and the Persondata dates of birth and/or death match those in the infobox, theoretrically there should be no reason not to remove those instances of the template. Let's run this by GoingBatty on his user talk page -- or invite him to join us here. Broaching the subject on the BRFA or VP page is only likely to draw confusing crosstalk before the next removal phase is fully formulated. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Yup, that's why I broached it outside the BRFA. Even if we agree now that this is worthwhile, it's probably best to get this BRFA through first and then file a second, just to avoid complicating things too much. I definitely agree the end goal is to transfer to Wikidata, but as you've pointed out, much if not all of that transfer must be manual, at least at this point in time when no-one has come up with a way to automate it satisfactorily. The role of automation here, as I see it, is to remove as much of Persondata as we can without data loss to make it easier for those in the trenches doing manual conversion to focus on the end goal. ~ RobTalk 03:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
@GoingBatty: Please chime in, sir. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I respect that all of you are working collaboratively to brainstorm how to automatically copy data from Wikipedia to Wikidata, and don't want to do anything to get in the way of that goal. Getting rid of Persondata with only the name populated may get rid of a couple thousand instances - a small drop in the bucket. If you can also copy from the various date templates as BU Rob13 suggested, then maybe the next step in Persondata removal would be to remove those where the Persondata dates exactly match the date templates. Based on the way AWB used to populate Persondata, I suspect there are many instances of those. Who has the expertise to run bots to copy the data to Wikidata? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
@GoingBatty: "Who has the expertise to run bots to copy the data to Wikidata?" That's a very pertinent question, and so far all of that and related information has been funneled through a single Wikipedia editor who has expressed no interest in remaining usable information from Persondata, and has been the most single-minded proponent of immediate deletion. I think it's probably time that someone reach out to the other Wikidata editors who participated in the previous discussions, including Periglio, who turned up in the Village Pump discussion. Given that BattyBot47 can only remove something like 7,200 Persondata templates per day, it would seem that we have plenty of time to work on compromise solutions that would benefit Wikipedia and Wikidata, but we need an interested group of key Wikidata personnel with whom to discuss options. So far, those voices have been absent. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Alvarez's catch against Miami

Any clue of the source for this image? I didn't find it in the yearbook. Cake (talk) 02:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I've got too many fronts open

Well, you do have a point about "out of sight, out of mind". I wonder if T.seppelt keeps some statistics on the usage of their tool; they could be enlightening. Anyway, I don't feel too strongly about this (and hence my not voting), and I've got several discussions going on the site - plus, I've not got anything particularly insightful to add at this point - so I probably won't be replying there. Alakzi (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@Alakzi: Well, it's hell being popular, my friend. You're rapidly becoming the go-to guy for quick fixes and challenging coding problems. Help as many people as you can, but recognize that there are only so many major battles you can fight at once. I get yanked in ten different directions on Wikipedia every week, and sometimes it's tough to prioritize my limited time. That said, I know where you're coming from with regard to Persondata. I just want to get as much of the remaining alternate name information transferred from Persondata to Wikidata as possible. It's too much to expect to get 100% or anything close to it, but the unseemly rush to delete what we know to be valid and usable information borders on OCD. In the mean time, I continue to do my part manually. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
(watching:) I confess that I use a lot of Alakzi's time, with thanks, and that I don't see who is the "we" in "what we know to be valid and usable information". I have not used persondata a single time, so am not part of the "we". I like information being open and visible, such as in infoboxes, not collapsed, commented out or otherwise hidden. Even if persondata is removed it will stay in the history of all pages for people who want to dig. It should not contain data which is not in the article, right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Did you hear me? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
No, ma'am. I missed your earlier comment above, Gerda. I've been scrambling the last two days, and I somehow missed it with all of the various pings and other notices I was receiving. I'll try to respond at length in a little bit. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Please see my talk: make me smile. "ma'am" doesn't make me smile, or does it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

NCAA college coach infobox

If you guys are revamping, I have a few requests:

  • Make the box wider (on level with the standard basketball and football infoboxes)
  • Have an eye towards accurately depicting coaches who had significant playing careers (right now that is a serious limitation)
  • Don't allow the same school in "alma mater" and "playing years" - probably just the template documentation
  • Consider removing coaching record. It should be in coaching tables anyway and there is always a fight over what to include or not to include. Alternately, come up with some decent logic on how to display.

Personally, I think NCAA college coach is very outdated and clunky. Works well for coaches in the 20's and 30s who coached several sports, but poorly for the modern coach. But I am sure that's part of the aim of revamping it. Rikster2 (talk) 12:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Rikster2: All good and pertinent comments. As we get further into the process, I'm sure we will have follow-up questions for you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

If you have some spare time...

You might have seen this already, but I figured I'd ping you since it's basically all your fault I have anything to do with TfD in the first place ;) Alakzi posted about the current TfD backlog at AN, which did not exactly generate a stampede of admins to help out with the problem. To make the backlog less daunting, I dumped a list of expired unclosed TfDs in my sandbox and we've been slowly working through them - if you're interested in closing a few, you'd be good at it (and my eyes are glazing over. All five of them!) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: Please check your email account. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
On top, I'm worried about Alakzi, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Gerda, while I sometimes worry about Alakzi, too, he is an intelligent person over the age of consent, and I don't want to be seen as patronizing him. Some of these conflicts he needs to work through on his own, and I certainly will help and/or offer advice on or off-wiki if he asks. He is, was and remains a wiki-friend. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I feel empty --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: I'm not sure how it's going to work out for Alakzi and Wikipedia, or, for that matter if he even wants to return to editing, now or later. Based on my limited knowledge, maybe Alakzi needs to focus on other things in his life right now, maybe Wikipedia is a distraction from more important things. That is, of course, for him to determine. But if he is leaving to focus on more important things in real life, we should not be "empty" or sad, but should be happy for him. If he doesn't return to editing, I will certainly miss having him around, but that may be a selfish perspective. Maybe we will get to have the advantage of his skills again when he gets some other things squared away. At this point, all I can say is "I don't know." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Sounds a lot more realistic than the above. Why, say, should Alakzi want more of the "company" we provided? - My best year was possibly the first when I wrote articles on music all alone. - Trying to let go, again. Good poem here (under the image by another missed friend) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I should have said I am worried about the pig images I saw, and I don't dare to look deeper because it looks like not suitable for restoring health. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
"Pig images" ?? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I someone blanks a talk I look and here find this, and am disgusted enough to not look further, but you (all) who are not recovering could do that, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
It's a subtlety of the language, but that probably should have been "pig imagery," i.e., imagery = metaphorical images. I was looking for actual photos, etc., and expecting something even more shocking. As for the actual comment linked, I can't say I've read all of the back history between the parties leading up to it, but that comment by itself looks like a perfect candidate for a 24-hour civility/NPA block. Probably didn't happen because no one saw it for several hours after the fact because A blanked his talk page. At this point, however, the moment has passed, and it's probably better not to stoke the embers as uninvolved third parties. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the language lesson, will use imagery more often. Imagining that licking was disgusting enough and perhaps more so than seeing an actual image. No more time for that, need laughter (see my talk) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
When I saw your comment, Gerda, I was looking for pig pictures too. The only pictures I ever post are cute kittehs :) The problem post was helpfully removed by an IP, which ironically made it easily missable by those many, many admins apparently keeping watch. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
It says that this barnstar is awarded to those who have gone above and beyond to prevent Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes. I hope that includes disingenuous behaviour that derails our RfCs Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I was apparently buried when you posted the barnstar above. I'm not sure exactly what I did to earn it, but it seemed ungracious of me not to thank you for thinking of me, even if belatedly. Thank you, sir. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Fleming Field

What happened in 1924? Some older sites have it from 1924 to 1930 and the yearbook remarks about the Rollins game on the "newly completed" gridiron. Was it renovated or something? Stands added? There's also two photos of it from 1924, a panorama with of the Drake game with straight field goal posts and the one on the article of a made field goal through jagged posts. Cake (talk) 04:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

  • @MisterCake: As I understand it, "Fleming Field" was located on what is effectively the front lawn of the current Florida Field/BHG stadium, between the main stadium entrance and University Avenue. When I was cleaning up the Florida Gators football, 1920–29 article five years ago, I could find no definitive source for when the "Fleming Field" name came into use. I'm under the impression that the same playing field may have had one or more generic names, e.g., "University Field," etc., before the Fleming name was attached to it. As I recall, I only used the name when I had contemporary newspaper source for it, as I was afraid that I would insert it anachronistically.
There's also some question of whether this was the same field that was used for military parades and marching exercise by the corps of cadets -- or merely close by. Are you aware that before WWII, the University of Florida was effectively a state-run all-male military academy, with mandatory ROTC participation by all able-bodied students -- like Texas A&M was previously? Florida is still one of the strongest ROTC programs in the country, and one of the few to have all three services represented on campus. When I was an undergrad in the mid-80s, I had a dozen or so fraternity brothers who were in either NROTC or AROTC (about 10% of the fraternity members). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
"Newly completed" doesn't seem like "newly christened" or "newly dedicated" but maybe it was. I did know Florida was a strong military school - for instance the cannons on campus for the Bo Gator Storter story, though I did not know they were all ROTC. The Germans used to have fraternities with mandatory sword duels. Never heard of anything before about a military field and whether it was Florida field; but I only recently realized Perry Field meant Tootie. Something must have happened in '24. Cake (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Yup. You can find old team photos of all of the players in their cadet uniforms. The marching band wore cadet uniforms well into the 1930s. And I have seen photos of the university cavalry unit on parade on what appears to be Fleming Field (or an adjoining parade field), complete with the old, pre-Florida Field wooden stands in the background. The university's athletic playing fields were a pretty casual affair before Tigert instigated the construction of Florida Field in 1930. Before then, the Gators were just as likely to play their "home" football games in Jacksonville or Tampa as Gainesville. Perry Field was built on land donated by the Perry family; as I recall, the Perrys owned the local dairy. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

If i may be so bold... according to Norm Carlson, University Athletic Field was official rechristened Fleming Field in 1915. That being said, while I've always enjoyed Carlson's stories, I've found that they are not always 100% accurate. However, he was an official university historian, so there's that. Zeng8r (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Zeng8r and MisterCake: Likewise, while I respect and appreciate Norm's contributions to documenting the Gators' history as sports information director, I have found numerous factual errors in his "Norm Carlson remembers . . ." article series that he has written in semi-retirement for UAA's GatorZone website. They are usually the sort of errors that one makes when one iss (a) older in years, (b) relying on anecdotes from now-deceased former Gators who were old when he was a young UAA employee in the 1950s and 1960s, and (c) conflating different historical threads. Norm is usually a very good source for Gators football and other sports history from the late 1950s through the 1990s, when he was a full-time UAA employee and he was a participant in and/or first-hand witness of many of the events being recalled. I believe he was hired as an assistant sports information director in either '57 or '58, after a brief stint with Auburn's athletic department. He was previously a Florida undergraduate in the early 1950s. Small correction: he was not the university historian, but became the athletic department historian in semi-retirement after Spurrier left. FYI, I'm pretty sure that Carlson is responsible for one of the bigger errors in popular Gators history, that of inflating Fergie Ferguson's 1941 All-America honors to first-team (Fergie was, in fact, an honorable mention by Collier's in 1941). Back to the subject at hand, Carlson may or may not be correct about Fleming Field being so named in 1915, but, if so, we should be able to find contemporary newspaper or Seminole yearbook accounts that refer to the field as such between 1915 and 1924. I would also caution against assuming any given "home" game was played on Fleming Field; the Gators often played home games in bigger stadiums off campus prior to the construction of Florida Field in 1930, continued to do so until World War II, and did so intermittently again in the 1970s. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
One source has it called such in 1921. I did not mean to imply it has to be a name, though it is odd how 1924 is the first year where it's many places. Cake (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
What's the 1921 source, Cake? BTW, here's the $64 question: who was Fleming? Knowing that might help place the naming event, officially or informally. Have you looked through the old yearbooks for references to the name? You may also want to check the Seminole ROTC pages, too, for references to it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I think that Fleming was Francis P. Fleming, late governor of Florida. It's mentioned in the Carlson piece linked above, and I swear I've seen it corroborated somewhere else but can't remember where. Thought it might be in Tom McEwen's "Gators", but I just skimmed my copy and didn't see it. Somewhere in Yon Hall, I bet there's a box of old newspaper clippings containing the answers we seek... Zeng8r (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
@Zeng8r: Well, that's as good as any story I've heard. It appears that Fleming was the governor during a crucial period after Florida Agricultural College was founded in 1884, and according to the Wikipedia article (and Norm Carlson source), his son served on the Board of Control for the university system (and, yes, I noted whose edits added those tidbits). Given old man Fleming's unreconstructed segregationism, I can only imagine his son was one of the BOC members who was behind the sacking of Andrew Sledd in 1909. BTW, I have found McEwen to be a much more reliable source of the pre-World War II Gators than Carlson. When McEwen wrote his book in 1973–74, a lot of the old-timer players and coaches from the late teens, 1920s and 1930s were still alive, and the program had strong Tampa connections from those eras. Dutch Stanley was still working at the university then, General van Fleet was alive and living in Polk County, and Charlie Bachman was still alive and retired in Charlotte County. If memory serves McEwen's brother played for the Gators in the 1920s or 1930s. Now that I think about it, if the Tampa Tribune online archives include McEwen's old sports columns, it might be worth subscribing. Are you a Trib online subscriber, Zen? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
@Dirtlawyer1: The source is our game with Goat Hale. Don't see the yearbook calling it Fleming before 1924, and it has the cryptic note I quoted leading to my question in the first place. As for FAC, the 1899 FAC team might be the oldest in Florida outside of Stetson. And a McEwen backed up Crabtree in '29. Cake (talk) 04:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Okay, 1921 looks pretty solid for a football field called Fleming based on the Atlanta Constitution article details. I'm guessing, but the 1924 reference to newly "completed completed" may refer to the wooden stands or other improvements on the field. It's also conceivable the field had been regraded, rebuilt, drainage installed, etc. The location where Florida Field was built immediately to the south of Fleming Field was notorious for its bad drainage, which was exacerbated by the fact the playing surface is actually below ground level (it was originally built as an amphitheatre, and at the confluence of an underground creek, etc. Apparently it was quite the civil engineering project to get it to drain properly, including the construction of several huge undergraduate culverts. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes that's why I asked if perhaps stands were added or something along those lines, and mentioned the different looking field goal posts in two pictures of the same year. It looks like the student newspaper calls it Fleming a bit before 1924, e. g. against Howard; but good luck finding anything saying it before WW1. Cake (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
It was J. Milton McEwen by the way. Here he is practicing on the beach. Cake (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Got him. He was a letterman in 1928, 1929 and 1930. Confirms what I thought: his brother Tom McEwen, the Tampa Tribune sports columnist, was probably very well tapped into the '28 Gators through J. Milton. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Looks like stands added in 1924 is right. Compare Football game at the Fleming Field prior to construction of the Stadium. Cake (talk) 11:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, I think we're on the right track, but the photo caption is ambiguous at best. Does "before construction of the stadium" refer to new wooden stands on Fleming Field built during the 1920s or the new bowl at Florida Field in 1930? Also, the photo is unhelpfully dated "1920s." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Your point that it might mean 1930 is something I considered after hitting send, but I don't think so. It's placed among the 1924 photos and does have that look. Granted that's no smoking gun. Lots of the UF photos have unhelpful dates unfortunately - I think pretty many of them are put one year late too (perhaps due to the yearbook). I found this looking through UF's digital collections stuff. 1931 looks to be their first year of loads of material. Never heard Jones or Bachman's voice before; I found it pretty neat. Cake (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
This provides some info about Fleming, perhaps. Cake (talk) 06:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Duncan Armstrong

Saw your request at Tony's talk page. I have access to NewsBank which has good coverage of Australian papers. I've scanned through the first 10 pages of results there and have saved about 20 articles as PDFs if you want them. I'd just email them to you straight away but you can't attach anything through Wikipedia's email interface. If you email me first then I should be able to send them to you in my reply. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Your work with {{Persondata}} certainly qualifies as tireless. Thank you for spending a lot of hours on manually converting useful data. While many (most?) don't understand what you're doing or why you're doing it, it is useful work, and it helps make the encyclopedia as accessible as possible in a world where machine-readable data is becoming increasingly important. ~ RobTalk 20:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Rob. I just wish I had the programming skill set to automate more of the transfer of the remaining usable information from Persondata to Wikidata. Most editors don't understand the purposes of either of these two metadata system, and we, as a project, have not done a particularly good job of explaining those purposes to them. Like a high percentage of Wikipedia articles, most Wikidata profiles are in a stub-like condition, and are missing basic, core information -- some of which is sitting in the Persondata templates. To my way of thinking, it seems like a waste of an opportunity to improve Wikidata and educate our editors about it. For what it's worth, we should be doing everything we can to encourage editors of English language Wikipedia to familiarize themselves with Wikidata, and to take responsibility for the Wikidata profiles of the those Wikipedia articles on their watch lists. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Persondata

The good news is I'm happy to help. The bad news is I don't know what to do, but I see your kind offer to tell me what to do so here are three items on my watchlist:

@Sphilbrick: With you permission, I'm going to copy-paste these discussions from Rikster's and my user talk pages to the talk page page for WP:BASKETBALL. I think a lot of other sports editors -- and the sports WikiProjects -- would benefit from these discussions about Persondata. Is that okay with you? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with copying.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: I was in the process of preparing a discussion for WP:BASKETBALL, when I was interrupted by Andy's comments on Rik's talk page. Are you still interested in helping with Persondata/Wikidata transfers? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I am, but frankly only if it's easy. I accept that wiki data may be a better way of handling things than the persondata template, but if the burden on the editor is increased we've made the wrong decision. I'm frankly stunned that I read through most or all of the RFC and the page on persondata and didn't see a hint as to how to do this. Did I gloss over it and miss it? Is it so simple that once explained I'll realize I knew how to do it? I feel like I'm missing something fundamental and I don't know what it is. (I do have to leave for a couple hours so my lack of response in the next couple hours is not lack of interest but lack of being around.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

No, sir, you didn't miss it, Sphilbrick. There are no instructions. I'm not a tech geek, but I am reasonably fluent in geek-speak. What you are seeing are several institutional and cultural biases in action: (1) our tech-oriented people are very bad at explaining and (2) they don't understand the political/social need for buy-in for the new system. It's the difference between being able to design a better mousetrap and being able to sell a better mousetrap. In fairness, however, I must say that the RfC and preceding discussion on Wikidata were primarily about the deprecation of Persondata, not about data transfer or salvageable information. But I digress.

The quick answer to your "how-to" question above is to provide examples. Here's the relevant links to your examples above:

  1. Adia_Barnes: Wikipedia article;
  2. Adia Barnes: Wikidata profile;
  3. Alexis Gray-Lawson: Wikipedia article;
  4. Alexis Gray-Lawson: Wikidata profile;
  5. Alexis Hornbuckle: Wikipedia article; and
  6. Alexis Hornbuckle: Wikidata profile.

If you look at the left-hand "Tools" menu on each Wikipedia article page, you will see a link for "Wikidata item". This link takes you directly to the Wikidata profile for the particular article. Once you're in Wikidata, you may move from profile to profile by using the "Search" dialog box in the upper right-hand corner of the page, in the same manner you use it to move from article to article in Wikipedia.

Okay -- that's Wikidata 101. Are you with me so far? If so, what are your next questions? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

good start – I have to run I'll be back--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, sir. I'll be around this afternoon and tonight until around 12 midnight local time (U.S. EDT). I'll try to have several more examples for you by the time you get back. This is a useful exercise for me because I can probably use our dialog to create a more generalized explanation for the sports Wikiprojects. Cheers -- talk more later. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: When you get a change, take a quick look at the changes I made to each of the three example articles and their Wikidata profiles below, and let's chat more when you have time.

  1. Adia_Barnes]: Adia Barnes Wikipedia article changes;
  2. [3]: Wikidata profile changes;
  3. Alexis Gray-Lawson: Wikipedia article changes;
  4. [4]: Wikidata profile changes;
  5. Alexis Hornbuckle: Wikipedia article changes; and
  6. [5]: Wikidata profile changes.

Note that I am adding descriptions in English, French and Spanish, as well as Wikidata information beyond the Persondata core data. For present purposes, I would suggest we focus only on English data and the core information from Persondata, but these examples do give you some idea of some of the other details you can add to Wikidata profiles. We can talk more about data entry when you get back. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring you, I have looked at the edits you made, and it started to learn what needs to be done. Rather than pester you for exact steps I decided to go to the wiki data page and walk through their tutorial. It hasn't started well and I may offer them some suggestions but I'll read on before commenting further.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
At your convenience. If you run into any questions while reviewing the Wikidata tutorial, just ping me. I found that a lot of Wikidata was better absorbed by doing, and that I got further faster by asking questions of another Wikipedia editor who is also a Wikidata administrator. Once you get the hang of it, adding fields to profiles and inputting data to the fields is pretty easy. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I've gone through the tutorials (which need a lot of work). The answer some questions but not all. While that is understandable for a tutorial I think they're missing some very very basic information. I'll comment on them elsewhere when I get a chance.
Let's start with two easy questions. First, I noticed that Rhonda Rompola has a wiki data entry, but it did not include a birthdate. I think your advice will be that I should add it to the article along with the source, and then add it to the wiki data entry and note that it was imported from Wikipedia. However I started by entering it directly into wikidata. I was successful in adding the date. A very tiny accomplishment but my first addition to wiki data as far as I know. I wanted to include a reference so I clicked on reference, And saw two possible properties. I successfully entered the retrieve date but the other property is "stated in". It seemed obvious this should be the URL of the source, but that did not take. That leaves me with a reference whose only entry is the retrieval date that no source. The definition of "stated in" is "To be used in the source field, to indicate where a claim is made". If that isn't the URL what is it?
Please do not fix my entry, I learned better when I do things myself but if you tell me what I was supposed to do I'd appreciate it.

:::Second, and perhaps this should be first because it's the most fundamental question of all, and if mentioned in the wikidata documentation I sure missed it. I recently created Barbara Stevens (basketball). There is no wikidata entry in the tools section on the left sidebar. Surely the creation of the initial wikidata entry is the most fundamental edit one can make, yet I haven't found anywhere that explains how to do that. Again, please do not do this for me but just tell me how to do it so I will learn. If someone points out that it is explained somewhere clearly I'll apologize but at this moment I'm stunned that such a basic step isn't prominent in the tutorial.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I intend to add Rhonda's birthdate along with the source to the article, but if there is a reason to add something to wiki data that isn't in the article along with a reference I'd like to know how to add the reference to wiki data. Perhaps the argument will be that that's an empty set, but if so, what type of information belongs in the "stated in" field?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

:::I'm guessing that to create a new item I go to a wikidata page click and create new item. Arguably that sounds obvious but I would've thought one could do it from the Wikipedia page, I do not see how. I created this item But I presume I'm missing a step, because the wikidata entry under tools doesn't appear. Does it just takes some time I do I need to do something to link the wikidata entry to the Wikipedia page or was I incorrect in the way I created the wikidata entry?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Good news! I figured out the missing step – I needed to fill out the Wikipedia entry. --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I just added the wikidata entry for Abby Waner. When it came to place of birth I entered the city Englewood. There are multiple Englewoods so I made sure I chose the one that's in Colorado. I also added the qualifier to enter Colorado. I'm not sure this is correct. If the city I chose is uniquely the Englewood Colorado is also adding the administrative territorial entity redundant, necessary or optional? (I hope you don't regret offering to help:)--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: Sorry, I'm just seeing your newest Wikidata handiwork on Barbara Stevens now. Couple of points -- Wikidata does not "dismabiguate" profile titles in the same way English Wikipedia does; just enter the WP:COMMONNAME (i.e. English language Wikipedia article title) in the "English language label" field. The Wikidata profile links directly to the English language Wikipedia article, as well as any foreign language articles on the same subject (they're all listed at the bottom left of the profile page). Use the English language "Description" field for a one or more short descriptions, e.g., "American basketball coach"; it's usually best practice to include the nationality of the subject in the description. If you have alternative names for the subject -- full name, birth name, maiden name, married name(s), nickname(s), etc., enter each of those on a separate line in the English language "Also known as" field (also sometimes called the "alias" field). Here's an example Wikidata profile for Olympic swimmer Dara Torres:
Dara Torres: Wikidata profile with multiple descriptions, and multiple names
Note that multiple descriptions are not entered on separate lines of the "Description" field (like multiple name variants under "Also known as"), but are delimited with commas. For someone like Barbara Stevens, a single description may be perfectly adequate, and multiple descriptions can be overkill. Note for Barbara Stevens I added additional employers, and new fields for "country of citizenship" and "place of birth" -- core Persondata, which should be trasnferred from the Persondata template or infobox, if available. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your help but I prefer that you tell me what I need to change and let me change it, as my experiences that I remember things better when I do them.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
For example you said I should enter Barbara Stevens rather than Barbara Stevens (basketball), yet the wiki data entry says Barbara Stevens (basketball), so I don't understand what you did.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Understood: you want to learn by doing. I'm the same way; it's easier to learn and remember by actually doing it. Abby Waner is the last time I snatch your OJT learning experience by doing it for you!
Couple of things to remember about names . . . (1) enter name variants in the "Also known as" field at the top of the page; (2) if you have a full birth name, add a "birth name field"; (3) if you have a nickname (e.g., Abby), add a "nickname" field; (4) the "given name" field can accommodate both nicknames and complete first names as separate entries, if you prefer.
Things about place of birth and place of death . . . (1) all U.S. cities should be into the place of birth field with only the city name (no state, etc.); (2) however, all U.S. cities should have the city name entered with "city name, state name" in the "Also known as" field of the city's Wikidata profile; (3) if the city's "also known as" field includes the "city name, state name" (e.g., "Englewood, Colorado"), then that will be offered to you as an option when you type "Englewood" in the "place of birth field" for your subject person; (4) if not, add the "city name, state name" alternate name form to the "Also known as" field of the city's Wikidata profile.
Okay -- getting the hang of this game yet? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Convenience break, No. 1

Answers to Barbara Stevens questions coming up . . . catching up with you now . . . . Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Q: "For example you said I should enter Barbara Stevens rather than Barbara Stevens (basketball), yet the wiki data entry says Barbara Stevens (basketball), so I don't understand what you did." Sphilbrick

A: Note the box at the top of the Wikidata profile that includes "Language", "Label", "Description" and "Also known as"; you can edit these fields by clicking on the "Edit" that is about an inch above the upper right-hand corner of the box. Do you see it? If so, click on it . . . . Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Got it, I now see what you did. Assume the system is smart enough to figure out the right one, but I'll pay attention next time I create a new article.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Q: "Assume the system is smart enough to figure out the right one"? Sphilbrick

A: Yes and no, SP. The "Also known as" field for American cities should include the standard American-style "City, State" entry as an alternate name. From personal experience, at least half don't, so I find myself detouring to the Wikidiata profiles for the cities to add the "City, State" alternate that then permits other editors to type "Englewood, Colorado" in the fields for places of birth and death without having to figure out which of the several Englewoods is the one they need. A lot of this information was imperfectly transferred by bot action, and it shows. Wikidata is clearly superior to Persondata in every aspect, but it still requires someone to spend the time and confirm the information at some level, in some manner. Sort of like Wikipedia in general, right? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Breezy Bishop - error in Wikidata?

I think I'm getting the hang of it. When I get to Breezy Bishop Wikidata, I see the name entered as Breezy Bishop. Shouldn't the label field be Barbara Bishop and the also known as field should be Breezy Bishop? I know in Wikipedia we have to handle titles specially. I think one of the advantages of wiki data is that the title is the Q code, so I can edit what some might think of as the title the label field. If my assumption is correct and make the edit the Q code will be unchanged but the name Breezy Bishop will be replaced by Barbara Bishop. Is that correct?--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

  • @Sphilbrick: As I understand it, the English language label for a Wiidata profile should the be WP:COMMONNAME of the English-language Wikipedia article. Assuming Bishop appears in the media most often as "Breezy Bishop," then that would be the English language "Label," and her full name would be listed as one of the "Also known as" aliases. You should also enter the nickname field for "Breezy" and given name field for "Barbara," and a "birth name" field if you have her complete birth name. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Missing Girard

I'm almost through the C's. Working on Curt Miller. According to the article he was born inGirard, Pennsylvania. That location has a Wikipedia article and a Wikidata entry. However, when I try to add place of birth and try to enter Girard, there are several options but none in Pennsylvania. It isn't the case that I have to click on more, it doesn't seem to be there. If I copy and paste "Girard, Pennsylvania", it doesn't seem to accept it. What am I missing?--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

SP, if you type the name, etc., into a Wikipedia data field and he auto-complete function does not recognize the input data, you can always back into the Wikidata profile from the "Wikidata item" link on the Wikipedia article page. I've run into a few quirky situations -- usually involves diacritics or another odd character. Can't imagine what the problem with Girard, PA could be -- I'll take a peek. Dirtlawyer1 (talk)
Short answer: there are two different "Girard Townships" in Pennsylvania. I think you're looking for the one in Erie County. Another example where adding the "also known as" field to the municipality's Wikidata profile would help in such situations. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I just added "also known as" aliases for both townships. The auto-complete functions should offer both options now when you're entering data into the "place of birth field". Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata tutorial commentary

I recorded my experiences going through the Wikidata tutorial. I hope someone will find them helpful. I briefly tried to check to see if I could figure out who created the tutorial but I failed. Do you know or do you have suggestions on where this might be posted? User:Sphilbrick/Wikidata tutorial commentary --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

  • SP, you're a builder and I appreciate that. Your critique of the Wikidata offers a number of very salient points for improving the tutorial for the benefit of other Wikidata newbies (and some not-so-new users). I will sniff around today, and see if we can find the correct editor or user talk page to post your comments. Clearly, there is a lot of room for improvement, and making it easier for existing Wikipedia editors should be a top priority for the future success of Wikidata. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • SP, there are several talk pages connected from the Wikidata main page "Contact" section. One or more of those might not be a bad place to start. Getting in touch with a Wikidata administrator or two is probably a good idea as well. I'll keep sniffing around. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I posted a link somewhere, and the original editor of the wiki tutorials saw it and thank me for it with plans to make improvements. That editor noted something I should of have considered, in some cases the tutorial was correct at the time it was written but the interface has been tweaked in the tutorial hadn't kept up.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Response to my assignment

collapsing prior report

1. five examples of birth dates not previously transferred to Wikidata;

2. five examples of birth places not previously transferred;

3. five examples of alternate names not previously transferred;

4. five examples of short descriptions not previously transferred.

You didn't ask about place of death, but:

Others of note:

  • Linda Hill-MacDonald Persondata Description – American basketball player – coach Wikidata basketball coach

(I changed the Wikidata entry to American basketball coach because I see nothing in the article to support the claim that she was a player. She probably was but I don't see the support.)

  • Lauren Jackson Had a short description "basketball player". The wiki data description is "Australian basketball player". While that is not exactly the same I don't think it qualifies as the example you are looking for. Let me know if my assumption is wrong. I think you are looking for examples where the person data description is "richer" than the Wikidata description.
  • Le'coe Willingham Had two birthdates one in the lead, one in the INFOBOX. The one in the lead was correct the one in the INFOBOX was not. Probably not surprisingly the one in the INFOBOX was transferred to Wikidata. I see that it was transferred by a bot. Probably not trivial to ask a bot to check for more than one date especially when one is well-formed in a template and the other is free text but I just thought I'd mention it.
  • Lindsey Yamasaki The Wikidata description was Japanese basketball player, which matched what was in the Persondata record. However, Lindsay was born in the US and played basketball in the US. She may have a Japanese heritage but I don't think that qualifies her as a Japanese basketball player. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphilbrick (talk • contribs) 15:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @Sphilbrick: Keep'em coming. I'm looking primarily for clean examples where accurate Persondata was not transferred to Wikidata, and can be transferred manually. But don't hesitate to provide other examples where inaccurate infobox information was transferred to Wikidata by bot action -- that is secondary evidence that all of these profiles should be manually reviewed by a live editor. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I think everything above the "others of note" comment, except for Marsha Sharp qualifies as "accurate Persondata was not transferred to Wikidata" --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The following is my updated response I removed the other odd items which had mentioned before and just limited the list to those things that met your request. I'm not done going through my watchlist but I'd like to stop adding to this list unless there is something that you think is valuable to continue recording.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


1. five examples of birth dates not previously transferred to Wikidata;

2. five examples of birth places not previously transferred;

3. five examples of alternate names not previously transferred;

4. five examples of short descriptions not previously transferred.

Deprecated parameters in Infobox NFL player

I went to start figuring out the regex for removing the deprecated parameters for {{Infobox NFL player}} when I thought about an argument that will almost certainly be brought up at the BRFA. WP:COSMETICBOT forbids cosmetic-only changes from being made to articles by bot without good reason. Removing parameters that do not in any way affect the infobox will almost certainly be considered cosmetic. Do we have a good argument for ignoring the fact that this is cosmetic-only? I could make the case that the existence of these parameters is likely to cause confusion and make it likely that new editors will add new information to the wrong parameter, but I don't think that will be an easy sell. Alternatively, if there is a non-cosmetic task fit for a bot on the pages that transclude {{Infobox NFL player}}, I could tag this task onto that. I wish I had known about these parameters prior to fixing those footnotes, as I could have knocked out a lot of them at the same time. Thoughts? ~ RobTalk 23:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

This isn't cosmetic in any sense of the word. COSMETICBOT forbids such changes as trimming white space, changing the capitalisation of templates, relocating braces, and other such trivialities. But not all changes that have no visible effect are "cosmetic". If the BAG people don't grok their own guidelines, we might as well throw in the towel. Alakzi (talk) 03:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Maybe I misunderstand the policy, as I'm not that familiar with precedent for whether the change is cosmetic. I know AWB has a setting that defines cosmetic as anything that doesn't change the HTML output of the page, which this wouldn't. That was what I was using as my baseline. ~ RobTalk 16:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
@BU Rob13 and Alakzi: Guys, sorry I have been slow to respond on this topic. I will rely on your greater expertise and experience in preparing the bot request, but there are a whole host of clean-up work items that need to be performed on this template to eliminate deprecated parameter names, etc. The current template is the result of a half-dozen merges of older templates back in 2008-2010, and so some of the older transclusions need a lot of clean-up. If you give me a couple of days, I will review some of the older, messier ones and compile a list of the work that needs to be done. With a little planning, we should be able to accomplish a lot of that outstanding work in a single pass through all 14,000+ uses. Thanks for your input and willingness to work on this. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I discussed this a bit with Cyberpower678 who clarified COSMETICBOT for me. I was interpreting it as overly strict, I believe. There's no way to know 100% until a BRFA is submitted, but if we are completing several clean-up tasks and start a discussion to verify that interested editors desire a bot to complete this clean-up, we probably have our bases covered. I know very little about this particular template, so I'll rely on your expertise on what needs doing. Before we think about clean-up, I do have one question. Should {{Infobox gridiron football person}} be merged into {{Infobox NFL player}}? Has this been discussed before? I can see no reason to keep them separate, but I imagine this must have been discussed before. Mind filling me in on past discussions/developments about how these two templates relate to one another? ~ RobTalk 02:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dirtlawyer. How's the list of cleanup for Infobox NFL player articles coming? I know Infobox gridiron football person articles need cleanup for the draft stuff, as many of them have the round and pick of the draft in the same parameter. Does that apply to Infobox NFL player articles as well? ~ RobTalk 18:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Poke. ~ RobTalk 21:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Is there a help resource?

It isn't fair to you that you get to field all my questions. I look to see if there was a village pump at Wikidata or some help forum but didn't find one. Is there one?

I have been trying to add employers, but in many cases there are half a dozen or so. It gets quite tedious to have to select employer, then after adding the specific item, identifying the source in each case. It would be nice if there was a way to add multiple employers at once. Then I could pull up the section once and then at each employer. I notice that when you add an alias it automatically adds a new line so something like that would be nice. Another approach is similar to that of the Commons upload wizard, where you can upload multiple images, enter some information and copy it down to each other image. My hope is that you will tell me that this facility already exist and you just have to tell me how to do it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: It's okay, chief. I'm happy to answer any questions I can. I'm sure there's a help forum somewhere, but early on I had better luck just asking another knowledgeable user how to perform basic functions.
Keep in mind that you are not obligated to add references to Wikidata; I have encountered very little vandalism there, I assume because it's a fairly esoteric, and like any Wikimedia project all information is subject to confirmation.
As for you your specific question, as far as I can tell, you can only add one line (a "claim") of a given field at a time. Therefore, mutiiple employers, etc., have to be entered one at a time. As you have noted above, this is a different data entry protocol than that for the "also known as" aliases where a user may enter multiple aliases at the same time. I'm not a coder or programmer, so I can't tell you why the data entry interfaces are structured the way they are (or whether there's even a good reason for it). Most of the fields for athletes are single "claims", but obviously for many if not most coaches, there will be multiple claims under "employer." FYI, the same dynamic applies to "teams" for players as well. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dirtlawyer1/Archives/2015/September&oldid=1077471319"