User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 29
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Sphilbrick. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | → | Archive 35 |
Women's basketball
Articles does need a bit of a structure and a lot of improvement. There were some major problems at one point with the article because it seemed to only acknowledge that women in the United States played basketball. I tried to neutralise that some. If I was doing a major improvement effort on the article, I'd honestly start by finding sources and fully citing what I can, blow out as much of the article as possible with full citations. Once that blowout was done, then see where daughter articles can be copied and what completed sections could be rewritten a bit and then put into another article like history of basketball. --LauraHale (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- My knowledge tends to US centric with a fair bit of Australian knowledhe thrown in. I think my book collection probably covers England to a degree. If I was focusing on the broad rules, I would go with the FIBA rules for international competition as the international default. this explains some of the differences. FIBA rules are often used as the international standard for domestic competitions for nation's with Olympic aspirations as you want your women consistently playing them so there is no whip saw confusion between one rule set and another. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's sport might be a place to start looking for people. The basketball project doesn't tend to get as much assistance is it could, but there are some eyes on the women's side.--LauraHale (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Re: Link to subpages
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
-- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- You can also import it from User:PrimeHunter/My subpages.js with this:
importScript('User:PrimeHunter/My subpages.js');
- PrimeHunter (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks to both of you.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Matt Bomer Infobox photo consensus discussion
Hi. Your opinion is requested in this discussion.
If, like me, you're in an area that was affected by Hurricane Sandy, and are unable to reply, I hope that you have not suffered too greatly, and my best wishes go out to you. Nightscream (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Since it appears you've been in contact with Matt Bomer (or his representatives), perhaps you could ask them where he was born? I know it wasn't Spring, Texas (or anywhere else in Texas), but all the website bios that copy each other still list Texas, including, unfortunately, ours. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 02:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- I sent an email requesting the info.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your concern. I was affected by Sandy, but far less than some. I was out of external power through Thursday, but had a generator. That said, the hot water wasn't on the generator, so it was good to have it back. The bigger deal to me was the lack of internet access for several days. My office was, and still is closed, which has been a pain. The bigger deal is that my daughter is in NY south of 38th street, so was without power until Friday night. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
File:Pope Theodoros II.jpg & User:Mad mido2020
Hi, you deleted a copyvio image I tagged under F9 earlier. The user has since re-uploaded it again, and re-inserted it into an article currently featuring on ITN. User:Mad mido2020 has a history of uploading copyvio files both here and on Commons. Can you take a look? Thanks! KTC (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Deleted, and left followup comment to uploader. Thanks for your diligence--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
The link has been added by someone whose username is very similar to the domain being added
Not planning to investigate
|
|---|
| padding |
|
Hello, Personal request: you need delete this topic: IP: 80.86.42.115 (IP - the mirror of the official site of the UK government). See:
Link to delete this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/Local/epetitions.direct.gov.uk (only crazy human could make the such violation). Because the government has the big shame (admins of Wikipedia gave status of "spamer" for the Queen almost). And USA - partner of the Monarchy. Additional links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom http://www.police.uk (not threat - additional link) We very ask. Thank you! - 95.29.254.210 (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC).
|
Adam Joseph
Who cares? If you want to delete that photo, delete it. I don't care. But do not challenge all of my uploads or leave idiotic message about being a sirrahpro. Sysmithfan (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- I care. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Did you not understand the question about "sirrahpro"? sirrahpro owns the copyright to the image you uploaded. If you are that person, you can do it. That's why I asked, it was hardly an idiotic question. That you don't understand the question probably means you aren't that person.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Let's clear some things up. First, this is a screenshot, meaning that I did not that this is not video (but that does not mean that I have continuously done in this in the past). This is "Adam Joseph performing1"(not a screenshot), which means I took this (personally). Since I work for the so called "press" (as a assistant photographer), I split my time between New York (USA), Different areas of Japan (mainly "Shibuya, Tokyo" and "Osaka", and "Fukuoka"). With that being said, I get access to many concerts. Now that you understand that, I hope that explains how I get most of my pictures. Sysmithfan (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I'm in favor of clearing things up, but this hasn't achieved that purpose. First, I cannot parse meaning that I did not that this is not video (but that does not mean that I have continuously done in this in the past). I don't know what you meant to say. Second, if you are trying to make a technical point about screenshots, fine, but to quote something I heard recently "who cares?" Seriously, does it matter whether it is a screenshot or something else? Third, what does any of this have to do with the images I deleted? In one case, it occurred to me that it might be your copyright, so I asked, and you called it an idiotic question. Fourth, in the case of the photo you claim to have taken, I indicated that you needed to supply permission, and you deleted the post, without a response. Any reasonable person will assume you aren't planning to provide permission, so I deleted it. Fifth, I welcome contributors who have photographic skills. Mine, sadly are lacking, so I am appreciative of anyone who is willing to freely give their work to Wikipedia. However, deleting reasonable questions, and taking pot shots at people trying to help makes things difficult, Do you disagree?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- I will ask that excuse any previous or current grammar errors I have made. Currently I am multi-tasking. And I have been doing so for the past three hours. It is hard to keep your focus in different areas of importance. Anyway, what I meant to say is... this is a screenshot, meaning that I did not take this picture and that this is not my video. With that being said, this does not mean I have continuously done in this in the past (Uploaded screenshots). Also, "NatalieStewart.jpg" is my picture. I do not have a problem with people freely using that picture. It is not copyrighted. It just a picture I took during the concert and uploaded here. No permission is required from me for you or anyone to use it. I will be uploading that picture back soon. Sysmithfan (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- I understand multi-tasking, I'm trying to do so at the moment, and probably under performing. My comment wasn't intended to be critical, I simply didn't understand your point, so appreciate your rewording. As for the first issue, as you agree one of the images is a screenshot, not yours, you understand why it is not allowed, I hope. One detail, your link goes to the Wikipedia Upload Wizard, so I am not entirely sure to which image you refer. As for the NatalieStewart.jpg image, well, copyright is a tricky area. You are incorrect to say it is not copyrighted. It most certainly is if it was taken almost anywhere in the world (not sure if there are any exceptions). You might mean that you are willing to release it into the public domain, and many people will casually say material in the public domain does not have a copyright, but it is more accurate to say that public domain is a form of license of the material. If you have released it into the public domain, then we are grateful, but we need a permission statement. No offense intended, but every single day people upload photos they claim they took. In some cases, typically in the case of poor quality photos not published anywhere else, some are willing to accept the word of an editor, but when a photo has been published elsewhere, and is of decent quality, we like to have a permission statement on file. We want to protect the rights of copyright holders.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Okay. I understand and apologize if I offended you also. Although this is no excuse, there have been wikipedia users that have been aggravating me and following my everyday edits, which really annoys me. Unless otherwise stated, most of my pictures are uploaded under a Creative Commons license not public domain. But I will try to do better with this in the future. Sometimes choosing between different licenses can be confusing. Sysmithfan (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- No problem, thanks for understanding. I do a lot of work with images, but still find some of the licenses confusing. (and I do understand that being harrassed by some editors makes it difficult to treat others differently, it is something I have to watch myself.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Okay. I understand and apologize if I offended you also. Although this is no excuse, there have been wikipedia users that have been aggravating me and following my everyday edits, which really annoys me. Unless otherwise stated, most of my pictures are uploaded under a Creative Commons license not public domain. But I will try to do better with this in the future. Sometimes choosing between different licenses can be confusing. Sysmithfan (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- I understand multi-tasking, I'm trying to do so at the moment, and probably under performing. My comment wasn't intended to be critical, I simply didn't understand your point, so appreciate your rewording. As for the first issue, as you agree one of the images is a screenshot, not yours, you understand why it is not allowed, I hope. One detail, your link goes to the Wikipedia Upload Wizard, so I am not entirely sure to which image you refer. As for the NatalieStewart.jpg image, well, copyright is a tricky area. You are incorrect to say it is not copyrighted. It most certainly is if it was taken almost anywhere in the world (not sure if there are any exceptions). You might mean that you are willing to release it into the public domain, and many people will casually say material in the public domain does not have a copyright, but it is more accurate to say that public domain is a form of license of the material. If you have released it into the public domain, then we are grateful, but we need a permission statement. No offense intended, but every single day people upload photos they claim they took. In some cases, typically in the case of poor quality photos not published anywhere else, some are willing to accept the word of an editor, but when a photo has been published elsewhere, and is of decent quality, we like to have a permission statement on file. We want to protect the rights of copyright holders.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- I will ask that excuse any previous or current grammar errors I have made. Currently I am multi-tasking. And I have been doing so for the past three hours. It is hard to keep your focus in different areas of importance. Anyway, what I meant to say is... this is a screenshot, meaning that I did not take this picture and that this is not my video. With that being said, this does not mean I have continuously done in this in the past (Uploaded screenshots). Also, "NatalieStewart.jpg" is my picture. I do not have a problem with people freely using that picture. It is not copyrighted. It just a picture I took during the concert and uploaded here. No permission is required from me for you or anyone to use it. I will be uploading that picture back soon. Sysmithfan (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I'm in favor of clearing things up, but this hasn't achieved that purpose. First, I cannot parse meaning that I did not that this is not video (but that does not mean that I have continuously done in this in the past). I don't know what you meant to say. Second, if you are trying to make a technical point about screenshots, fine, but to quote something I heard recently "who cares?" Seriously, does it matter whether it is a screenshot or something else? Third, what does any of this have to do with the images I deleted? In one case, it occurred to me that it might be your copyright, so I asked, and you called it an idiotic question. Fourth, in the case of the photo you claim to have taken, I indicated that you needed to supply permission, and you deleted the post, without a response. Any reasonable person will assume you aren't planning to provide permission, so I deleted it. Fifth, I welcome contributors who have photographic skills. Mine, sadly are lacking, so I am appreciative of anyone who is willing to freely give their work to Wikipedia. However, deleting reasonable questions, and taking pot shots at people trying to help makes things difficult, Do you disagree?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Let's clear some things up. First, this is a screenshot, meaning that I did not that this is not video (but that does not mean that I have continuously done in this in the past). This is "Adam Joseph performing1"(not a screenshot), which means I took this (personally). Since I work for the so called "press" (as a assistant photographer), I split my time between New York (USA), Different areas of Japan (mainly "Shibuya, Tokyo" and "Osaka", and "Fukuoka"). With that being said, I get access to many concerts. Now that you understand that, I hope that explains how I get most of my pictures. Sysmithfan (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia rules about following a user's every edit
Are there any rules that prevents a user from following another user's every edits? Because I am constantly bothered a person, who follows me everywhere. He is constantly badgering me and it is very annoying. Is there anywhere to stop this? Sysmithfan (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Also as a side note, when I use bold text, it does not mean I am shouting. It just means I do not want you to miss the important statement and that it is a complete urgency. Sysmithfan (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding --SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. This person User:DAJF is constantly following me. That is why I made the "box statement" on my talk page. It was mainly for him. By the way, I removed you from that list. He is not trying to help. He always join in my discussions, almost every page I have edited, and all of my debates. Can you please do something about him? Sysmithfan (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)(talk page stalker) Discretely following a user's edits (especially by an admin) may be justified when investigating persistent violations of policy. Otherwise there is a clear policy at Wikipedia:Harassment. In such cases the usual procedure would be to address the matter in a friendly approach on the editor's talk page, and if that does not have an effect, and the complaint is wholly justified, then making a report (with diffs) at WP:ANI would probably be the next best step. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Now isn't a great time. I'm involved in something off-wiki, with some very brief interludes to check in here, but I'd have to do some research to deal with it. If it is still a problem tomorrow, let me know, if it is more urgent, use the adminhelp template. (Or ask Kugpung, who has more experience with these matters)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- He is not an admin. Also, I have asked him to stop, politely. But he continues to do this and it is very annoying. I need help with him. Sysmithfan (talk) 00:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sphilbrick, I will save you the work. I will bring proof of this matter. Whether this somehow incriminates me or not, I will bring all of it (proof of his Wik-hounding. Sysmithfan (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- He is not an admin. Also, I have asked him to stop, politely. But he continues to do this and it is very annoying. I need help with him. Sysmithfan (talk) 00:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Now isn't a great time. I'm involved in something off-wiki, with some very brief interludes to check in here, but I'd have to do some research to deal with it. If it is still a problem tomorrow, let me know, if it is more urgent, use the adminhelp template. (Or ask Kugpung, who has more experience with these matters)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
A serious message about poultry
Your comment here inspired me to write Poultry feed. You're completely right. It's shocking that we have a large article on Cattle feeding without even a stub for chicken feed. This systematic bias against poultry will not stand!--xanchester (t) 05:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Nice, thanks. (I still want a photo of the feed itself, I'll see what I can find).--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Arb
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Resysoping of FCYTravis / Polarscribe and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
No. 2625 Sqn RAF Regiment
I note that the Wikipedia page for 2625 (County of Cornwall) Sqn R.Aux.A.F Regiment was 'deleted' in October due to copyright infringement issues. The site which is listed as being copied is our Squadron website. I believe the creator of the Wikipedia article also created the Squadron website. I have contacted the admin of the Squadron site to give permission for the material to be reused- please can you say how this needs to be carried out? The log also shows another admin deleted the page in Aug- so I've contacted him as well. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlieannear (talk • contribs) 15:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- The answer is fairly simple, you need to file a permission statement with OTRS. See this page for a sample form. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, will do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlieannear (talk • contribs) 21:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
The Heartland Institute
Hi Sphilbrick. I looked over the Huffington Post article regarding your request for another opinion on the Heartland Institute and provided my assessment. I found that it was a borderline case, but since the article itself raises a lot of self-doubt about the validity of the results and possible errors in the methodology, I would lean towards it not being an RS as much as a "fun little experiment" of sorts. I noticed the content is still in the article today.
I came across it in my research on astroturfing. As I dug deeper into my research, I found that being a front group is often an accusation lobbed at lobbying organizations and trade associations that campaign aggressively in favor of corporate interests. So I found myself investigating each historical example to try to find out their exact actions. Still a question mark on this one.
Cheers! Corporate 19:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your review and comments. I had failed to notice that the IP had added it back again. I removed it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
To the IP
- I'm on holiday, with limited internet access and time, although I happen to be online for a few minutes now. I appreciate others watching over my page for me. I've tried to make it clear before, but failed. I cannot help you. I have never told anyone not to post on my talk page, and will not in this case, but I've stopped reading your posts, so you are wasting your time.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello, SPhilbrick, when you return from holiday please read my request on my Talk page if you can. Thanks.Trouver (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Information
I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 09:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
MBBS
Sorry, but I am not sure what you mean by this edit. Marked what complete? BollyJeff | talk 14:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Right, yes I beleive it's okay now. BollyJeff | talk 14:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Help desk
I figured out how to do a scrolling table, posted a reply to you at help desk, and created Help:Scrolling list. Hopefully, someone who knows how to make better scrolling boxes will improve Help:Scrolling list. As for my original request, I planned to use the scrolling list in Commons, not article space. But it was good to learn that scrolling lists are not for article space. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your post. I found the code for a scrolling list without using CSS in a 2007 help desk post (which I now can't locate). I don't understand the code, but it gives a first good draft for the Help:Scrolling list page. I don't know how to keep the header fixed. There was a big discussion about MOS Scrolling on 2 January 2012 - Scrolling references section Java workaround. You can find other scrolling link history via this link. If you look at the see also links on Help:Scrolling list, you'll see that scrolling tall or wide images is allowed for article space. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link to the long discussion. There's more going on than just the discussion, but while I was thinking of trying something live, and asking for reactions, I'll now do it in sandbox, to avoid the potential blowback. I think my example constitutes a reasonable exception to the MOS, more so than references, but I'll see if I can make a case.
- I'm also interested in table that are wide. I know about the wide template for images, I'll see if that can be done (technically, and within policy) for tables.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- I scoured Wikipedia for everything on scrolling (which wasn't much) and added links to the see also section of Help:Scrolling list. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Nice, thanks.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- I scoured Wikipedia for everything on scrolling (which wasn't much) and added links to the see also section of Help:Scrolling list. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm also interested in table that are wide. I know about the wide template for images, I'll see if that can be done (technically, and within policy) for tables.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 16:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
...William 16:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 16:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
...William 16:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 17:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
...William 17:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Hurtful
I saw your comment at User_talk:WilliamJE#Possible_premature_close and thought I'd point you to the first section of WP:NOTNAS. It's open season on admins around here. Toddst1 (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, I understand, and I know it is part of the job. However, I took a quick look at William's user page, and he seemed like a decent fellow, so I honestly hoped the response would be something like "oops, I'm sorry, I'm in a foul mood because of this incident, but it wasn't your fault, and I'm sorry I took a shot at you." I naively thought I was delivering a wake-up call. Instead, he doubled down.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, you may notice that I've blocked him for WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior not so long ago. I agree that it's unfortunate that it's continuing. Toddst1 (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hmmm I hadn't noticed that, although I'm not surprised. I didn't consider a block, while I wanted to make it clear that the statement was not collegial, I accept as an admin that I have to take it, even though if directed at someone else, it might result in a warning. (This is NOT a hint, I don't want him blocked or even warned for his comments to me - they weren't that big a deal, and if I can't make my point, I'll shrug it off and move on.) Given the background theme of "admins get special treatment" I was hoping he might realize that cuts more than one way. I don't think it happened.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Administrators not ordinary editors can threaten boomerangs and place blocks on people who don't comply. What's the percentage of administrators who were brought to ANI and had any kind of negative outcome come out of it. 10%? 5%? Less? Bet you $100 Todd would block me again if I researched the numbers and told about it on my user page(good or bad) or related how two administrators in the last week admitted they were wrong in some dealing with me and apologized. The truth would be disruptive to wikipedia. Which gets back to what I was saying this afternoon. The actions, like quick closings of ANIs or talk page discussions that put an administrator in a bad light, or inactions of administrators can be far more harmful to wikipedia than what any vandal can do to this website. ...William 01:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- I wrote a long response, but then I remembered I asked you to address, either with proof of your assertion (that I do protect or support your own) or a retraction, so until you address that, I'll not be changing subject.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 02:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, you may notice that I've blocked him for WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior not so long ago. I agree that it's unfortunate that it's continuing. Toddst1 (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, I thought I had seen that essay before, but reading further, I think I had not, so thanks for the link. Some interesting points and advice.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm missing something but aren't delete and redirect almost the same thing? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Almost, but not quite. I would always interpret a Delete as being not the same as a Keep, but I would never interpret a Delete as being "Don't even consider a redirect" unless it were explicitly stated. However, I could see them as different in the following, concrete, although slightly imperfect example: suppose someone created an article on Alyssa Thomas, and an AfD had several delete !votes. Her name is mentioned in 2012–13_Connecticut_Huskies_women's_basketball_team, but if someone said, "hey rather than simply delete, why not create a redirect to the Connecticut article, I would disagree with the plan. The mention of her in that article is just in passing. As a reader, I would be severely disappointed if I searched for Alyssa Thomas, saw that there was an article, and then came across that minor mention. In this example, I would not equate Delete and Redirect. However, if there is a legitimate redirect, I would equate the two (assuming that the existing article isn't salvageable).--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm missing something but aren't delete and redirect almost the same thing? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 16:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
...William 16:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
I retracted what I said earlier towards you and apologized. Go check it out. Also I see you posted again. Right now I don't want to read or think about our discussion, nothing personal, but I will read it and reply in some form tomorrow. In the meantime here's a kitten.
...William 22:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thank-you! I'm not always good at judging the tone of responses. I'll just emphasize that I'm finding the exchange interesting. I'm not fully understanding why you feel so strongly about it, but I'm willing to continue if you are. No rush, no pressure, in fact I'll be at basketball games tomorrow in NY so will have almost zero time on line.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
FIBA
Since the governing body for basketball is FIBA, it makes sense to basically have the two as pretty similar. (And yeah, I love basketball. Covered a lot of it and probably could bug basketball Australia for more if I needed to.) But given that they govern the whole sport pretty much, a separate project doesn't make sense unless there was some sort of GLAM aspect to it. --LauraHale (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- OK, my concern was that some of the regulars in Wikiproject Basketball might be solely interested in US aspects (NCAA and NBA) and might not be happy about posts about an area of non-interest, but you've convinced me it is worth a start.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Often, there are national tasks forces. I do mine kind of in Australia. USA tends to dominate but that is because most editors are from there. --LauraHale (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Saw your note on Dale Arnett's talk page and hope you don't mind my chiming in. I'd be interested in helping. My opinion is this should probably fit under Wikipedia:Basketball, but that is just one person's take. Rikster2 (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Great! I have a couple things going on, but I'm going to post something at the talk page sometime today. I've seen your work, I'm excited about your interest.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Often, there are national tasks forces. I do mine kind of in Australia. USA tends to dominate but that is because most editors are from there. --LauraHale (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Looking for Advice
Phil, you close AfDs, right? I was wondering if I could get some help with the AfD for List of Start Menu replacements for Windows 8. Obviously, I'm not canvassing for support. I'm just looking for a way to make my arguments more effective. Editors seem to be getting hung up on the fact that the article is incomplete. Sure, it needs a lot of work, but that should get worked out through the normal editing of the article. Can you take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Start Menu replacements for Windows 8 and tell me if I'm doing anything wrong? BTW, it's OK if you disagree with my opinions. I'm just looking for a way to improve my ability to build consensus, and I'm seeking advice from an editor I respect. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Also, I haven't made this argument at the AfD yet, but editors also seem to be getting hung up on the fact that the article is in a list format. Personally, I like lists, but whether this topic is notable as a list or not is to me a formatting issue. IOW, we can change the article to not be a list but I believe I've made my case that some article about this topic meets WP:GNG. In fact, after doing some more research, I believe that several of the individual programs also meet WP:GNG. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- I appreciate that you thought of me, but I don't think I've ever closed an AfD. I have contributed !votes, but that is not an area where I feel especially knowledgeable. I will take a look, but I'm probably not the best source for advice.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've briefly looked at the article and the AfD. It raises some interesting questions I'd like to mull over a bit, particularly about how notability for a list works.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Apparently, WP:LISTN is where the notability for lists is discussed: "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines." OK, I didn't know that at the beginning of the discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Here's a couple of the issues I'm mulling—I think List of current NCAA Division I women's basketball coaches is notable (I may be biased as the creator), but do I need to show references discussing it as a list? This article is clearly talking about women's basketball coaches, but not necessarily as a group. Does it count toward notability? I think so, but I didn't link that source in the article, so do I need to?
- Apparently, WP:LISTN is where the notability for lists is discussed: "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines." OK, I didn't know that at the beginning of the discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think I've seen somewhere (don;t recall where) that all members of a list need to be notable. I don;t agree, but if some think so, I have a problem. (I might be confusing it with a claim that all members of a navigation template should be notable, a somewhat different subject). My current thinking is that is not sufficient to find references for each item in a list you must find something that discusses the group as an entity (otherwise, I could make a list by randomly combining notable items) but there may be some debate about what constitute discussion of the group.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- I looked over the Wikipedia article and the New York Times article and I would say that yes, it's discussing Women’s Basketball Coaches as a group. I would think it would count towards notability, but I haven't participated in my 'List of' AfD discussions, so I could be wrong.
- No, the items in a list don't need to be notable although some lists' inclusion criteria to keep the lists to manageable size. WP:LISTN says, "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- [Talk page stalker here.] IMHO, the list of NCAA women's Division I coaches is notable, same as the men's Division I list is notable. I believe that one reason why the list includes a lot of redlink entries is that there are fewer opportunities for women to have played pro basketball, so many of the women who coach never played in the pros, and thus don't clearly qualify under WP:ATHLETE. Another likely reason is that there are so few women editors in Wikipedia. ;-) When I first created the article for coach Nikki Caldwell, I was a bit concerned about demonstrating notability. However, no one has questioned the article, and it's enjoyed productive editing attention from several other users, so I conclude that the community regards many (if not all) of the Division I women's coaches as individually notable -- so surely the list would be notable. --Orlady (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think we are largely on the same page. I agree that Division I head coaches are notable, so OK even if some are redlinks (and I am working to remove the redlinks). However, it doesn't automatically follow that any collection of notable items is itself notable as a list. To take an extreme List of women's basketball coaches whose name contains a "q" is not notable. In contrast, List of women's basketball coaches who have played professionally and List of women's basketball coaches who have not played professionally both may all have notable members, but I'd want to see the sources before opining whether the list should exist as an article. (It is even possible one may qualify, but the complement fail).
- [Talk page stalker here.] IMHO, the list of NCAA women's Division I coaches is notable, same as the men's Division I list is notable. I believe that one reason why the list includes a lot of redlink entries is that there are fewer opportunities for women to have played pro basketball, so many of the women who coach never played in the pros, and thus don't clearly qualify under WP:ATHLETE. Another likely reason is that there are so few women editors in Wikipedia. ;-) When I first created the article for coach Nikki Caldwell, I was a bit concerned about demonstrating notability. However, no one has questioned the article, and it's enjoyed productive editing attention from several other users, so I conclude that the community regards many (if not all) of the Division I women's coaches as individually notable -- so surely the list would be notable. --Orlady (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- TQFK is dealing with a similar situation, the entries on the page may all qualify as notable, but is the connection—replacements for the standard start menu—enough to qualify the group as notable?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'd suggest that the list is not sufficiently notable for a stand-alone list, but the rapid emergence of Start menu replacements (and the list thereof) seems like a valid topic for inclusion in Windows 8#Reception. I guess I should comment in the AFD. --Orlady (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- I like that suggestion.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'd suggest that the list is not sufficiently notable for a stand-alone list, but the rapid emergence of Start menu replacements (and the list thereof) seems like a valid topic for inclusion in Windows 8#Reception. I guess I should comment in the AFD. --Orlady (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- TQFK is dealing with a similar situation, the entries on the page may all qualify as notable, but is the connection—replacements for the standard start menu—enough to qualify the group as notable?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- A merge might be better than deletion, I'm not sure. If it's deleted, I can still work on the article in my user space. But the problem is that this list is rather long. Based on my preliminary research, there are another 20 or so items to add to the list.[1] We just need to find secondary reliable sources first. Maybe I'm taking WP:DEADLINE too seriously? By that I mean, we don't have a deadline. I figured we could create the article and improve and expand it with time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- You can also interpret WP:DEADLINE to mean that the merged content could be split out of Windows 8 at some future date if and when the content is sufficiently mature to do so. However, I do think the most notable topic here is widespread dissatisfaction with the lack of Start Menu in Windows 8 (not the list of replacements that have been produced as a result of that dissatisfaction), and I predict that the "Start Menu replacement" market will shake out pretty quickly (possibly because Microsoft will step up with its own fix). I might be wrong, of course. --Orlady (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, the article can be written different ways. I choose a list format because I like lists, but there are other valid approaches. The article may end up morphing into something different.
- You can also interpret WP:DEADLINE to mean that the merged content could be split out of Windows 8 at some future date if and when the content is sufficiently mature to do so. However, I do think the most notable topic here is widespread dissatisfaction with the lack of Start Menu in Windows 8 (not the list of replacements that have been produced as a result of that dissatisfaction), and I predict that the "Start Menu replacement" market will shake out pretty quickly (possibly because Microsoft will step up with its own fix). I might be wrong, of course. --Orlady (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've been volunteered to help out with a bit of a mess (see below) so I'm going to bow out of this now, but I think it helped head in the right direction.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- It is barely relevant, and maybe not even that, but I'm smiling at controversy over Windows 8 issues — my compnay rolled out Winows 7 'very recently (and I think only because Microsoft announced they were stopping support for the prior version).
- @Sphilbrick: OK, that's fine. I appreciate your help. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- It is barely relevant, and maybe not even that, but I'm smiling at controversy over Windows 8 issues — my compnay rolled out Winows 7 'very recently (and I think only because Microsoft announced they were stopping support for the prior version).
- A merge might be better than deletion, I'm not sure. If it's deleted, I can still work on the article in my user space. But the problem is that this list is rather long. Based on my preliminary research, there are another 20 or so items to add to the list.[1] We just need to find secondary reliable sources first. Maybe I'm taking WP:DEADLINE too seriously? By that I mean, we don't have a deadline. I figured we could create the article and improve and expand it with time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)