User talk:Dirtlawyer1/Archives/2013/March

Hey gator...

Can you find out if Corey Hartung is related to Jim Hartung? TCO (talk) 01:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey, TCO, I got nothing. They are the right ages to be either father (born 1960) and daughter (born c. 1986), or conceivably grandfather and granddaughter. They share a sport and a relatively uncommon surname. I did Google, Google News, and Google News Archive searches, and I found nothing that links the two names. The only substantive source I can find for Corey is her team profile from 2009: Corey Hartung. Her profile does not include any family relationships. I also reviewed Jim's assistant coach profile from Nebraska: Jim Hartung. His profile lists four children: Jim, Nick, Jake and Hannah. That leaves grandfather/granddaughter, uncle/niece or some other more distant relationship. Wish I could help more. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

BTW, you could inquire directly of Jim by email. FWIW, his Nebraska coach profile has an email link. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Question concerning the capitalization or non-capitalization of "champagne"

I noticed that you reverted my edit of the capitalization of the word "champagne." Please be advised that "champagne" most definitely is spelled with a small "c" except when it is the first word in a sentence. I respectfully refer you to Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, which is the Number 1 dictionary in the United States. "Champagne" is spelled with a small "c" in this dictionary. Dictionaries give correct capitalization as well as correct spelling. "Champagne" is NOT a proper noun. Johnny Walker, Jim Beam, and Jack Daniels' are proper nouns. The Wikipedia entry for "Champagne" incorrectly spells it with a capital "C" many times in the article.

I try to be very careful with me edits, because I don't like to be overruled. If you like, you can revert your own edit back to "champagne" in the article on Eleanor Holm. If you really want to be a good person, you can also revert the incorrect capitalization of this word in the "Champagne" article.

Cheers!

Anthony22 (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The capitalized word "Champagne," properly used, refers both to the Champagne region of France and the sparkling wine made there using the methode champenoise. As regulated in Europe, only the sparkling wine made in Champagne, France made be labeled as "Champagne"; it is a proper noun with two different, but related meanings. In the United States, the uncapitalized "champagne" became a generic term for sparking wines. Increasingly, the generic word is falling into disuse as American winemakers honor the French/European convention, and as the American wine market becomes more sophisticated and consumers differentiate between Champagne produced in France and other sparkling wines.

American and British dictionaries are amazingly inconsistent in their usage when it comes to wine and grape varietals used as wine names. Cabernet-Sauvignon (varietal) and Bordeaux (region) are invariably capitalized, Chardonnay (varietal) and Burgundy (region) are usually capitalized, and "champagne" is often treated as a generic term encompassing all sparkling wines, regardless of its point of origin or method of fermentation. There is obviously a logical inconsistency when dictionaries capitalize "Burgundy" when referring to a generic red wine and don't capitalize "champagne" when referring to a generic sparkling wine. Regardless of that issue, "Burgundy" is a proper noun when used in its original, specific sense: a red wine from the Burgundy region of France made from the Pinot Noir varietal of Vitis vinifera. Likewise, "Champagne" is a proper noun when the word is used in its original, specific sense: a sparkling white or pink sparkling wine made from Chardonnay and Pinot Noir grape varietals. When capitalized, "Champagne" either refers to the region of France or the wine made there; the uncapitalized "champagne" is often used by convention to refer to any sparkling wine. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

College names in lead

Your edit piping Iowa Hawkeyes to University of Iowa made me wonder if there was ever any consensus on how to handle this. Too lazy to look at the archives of multliple projects :-) I've taken to using the team name in the lead for athletes, since they are more notable for their association with the teams than the university. In the body, I usually mention the school when saying something like "He attended <school name>." I think I adopted this style when I found it cumbersome to have University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) in the lead, and the potential astonishment if it was linked to UCLA Bruins football. If there is no consensus, and we've got bigger fish to fry, then another alternative is to leave existing articles as is.—Bagumba (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

DL, Bagumba, I've noticed this sort of edit elsewhere of late. I generally hate the idea of this sort of edit. Glacier109 does this all the time. He tends to edit a lot of articles about college sports in the Pacific Northwest. If you write "University of Iowa" then link to University of Iowa. If you write "Iowa Hawkeyes", then link to Iowa Hawkeyes or Iowa Hawkeyes football or another appropriate team article. Jweiss11 (talk)

Agree on avoiding pipes in this case. Any consensus on whether the school or the team should be in the lead?—Bagumba (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Bagumba, I'm not sure that we need a hard and fast rule for leads. When it comes to infoboxes though, I think the team article is always preferable to the school article. I do far more editing about college sports coaches than players. My generally strategy is to lead off with links to the schools, usually enumerating the schools a given coach worked for. Then in subsequent sentences that delve into more detail, I weave in links to the team articles. Bo Schembechler is a good example of this. Jweiss11 (talk)

B, to my knowledge, there is zero consensus on point. Several editors were previously pipe-linking the team-specific article (e.g., "Georgia Bulldogs football") with the university short-form name (e.g., "Georgia") as the hypertext display link. That is both inadequate and potentially misleading. My thoughts:

• First, we need to distinguish between the universities that the athletes attended, and the university teams for which they played. Whether this is done in the lead or the "college career" section is open to debate, but the associations between universities and their sports teams need to be established, albeit succinctly. I typically use something like "Jones attended the University of Notre Dame, where he played for the Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team" in the college career section. I think that's pretty clear without explicitly saying that the team is the officially recognized and supported team that represents the university in intercollegiate sports competition.

• Second, the use of undefined acronyms like UCLA or USC in body text is bad form, and all such abbreviations should be properly introduced in main body text upon their first use (see WP:ABBR or any decent style manual). Once introduced, the abbreviation may be freely used in the text. This is a basic principle of good writing, and one which is emphasized in my daytime job. Using the abbreviation (e.g. UCLA) and direct team link in the space-limited infobox is fine.

• Third, Wikipedia is not written for American sports fans; it's a general encyclopedia, not a sports blog, and no background knowledge should be presumed. Many readers, probably including most Americans, have no idea that the "BYU Cougars" are the football team of Brigham Young University. Most non-Americans and most Americans who are not sports fans will recognize/understand the university's name (e.g., "University of Florida") before they recognize the stylized team name (e.g., "Florida Gators") of the university's intercollegiate sports teams. Whether that initial use of the university name in the lead should be pipe-linked to the team-specific article is open to debate.

I am open to any suggestions that address the concerns above. Please consider, and let me know your thoughts. There is the possibility that the future consensus on point may begin here with your wisdom. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

1. Association between school and team: I believe we need to be succinct with referring to the school as far as education and location, and the team regarding the actual sport. I dont think a bio is the platform to educate on College athletics in the United States, which should be done in the school and team articles.
2. Acronyms: It is not common to ever see the teams mentioned with the full unabbreviated name. The NY Times is probably the strictest as far as style in newspapers, and they don't go to the trouble to expand U.C.L.A. et al for sports (though they do insist on the periods). I dont believe soccer articles expand teams like FC Barcelona to Football Club Barcelona on first mention either.
3. Piping: WP:ASTONISH should be the guiding principle. If a person's primary notability is for sports, it is not helpful to force readers in the lead to go to the school's article and not the school's team. Again, it should be incumbent on the school's team article to explain college sports and its association with the school. Mentioning college football, college basketball, etc. in the bio would also allow the reader to learn more.
4. Non-American-sports fan readers: Use Dean Smith as a test for flagship universities. I believe it would be better to educate a reader to associate Dean Smith with North Carolina, the North Carolina Tar Heels, or the Tar Heels. However, if she came out of it associating him primarily with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and tried to impress a knowledgeable fan by saying "University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill" in relation to Smith, she would be embarrassed, and this article would have failed by overemphasizing "University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill" in the lead instead of "North Carolina Tar Heels".

I'm willing to consider alternatives, but I ask that the benefits of any proposal be explained. Otherwise, the discussion digresses to an abritrary vote based on personal preference only.—Bagumba (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dirtlawyer1. You have new messages at Bagumba's talk page.
Message added 04:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Bagumba (talk) 04:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Navboxes

Regarding your comment at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_11#NBA_first_round_draft_navboxes, coming up with a consistent set of rules would be beneficial to cleaning up sports articles. As it is, I think people create them to see "their navbox" on multiple pages. Not every standalone list deserves a navbox. I was considering some caveat that says the subject must suitable to be mentioned in the lead of an FA article.—Bagumba (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• "I think people create them to see 'their navbox' on multiple pages": truer words have rarely been written on my talk page, Bagumba. In my four years on Wikipedia, the sports projects have suffered from a peculiar type of editor who specializes in the creation of navboxes for marginal awards, honors and pseudo-honors, and the bottom-of-the-page cruft problem has only gotten worse with time. Not to be catty, but the same navbox creators rarely contribute substantive article content. In my experience, WP:NFL is the biggest victim, and the active NFL project editors have been unable to regulate navbox creation in the past. I'm not sure what the Wikipedia-wide solution is, but the first-tier solution is for the sports projects to state their own criteria for what appropriate navbox subjects are. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I guess we could start with specific examples that are acceptable/unacceptable, and then try to generalize the criteria. I do think WP:NAVBOX should be followed, but may need to be tweaked to allow some navboxes that violate points 3&5, e.g. Heisman case. That's where I think the FA-lead criteria could be used. Note that Template:Atlantic 10 Conference Men's Basketball Season Champions would seem to pass FA muster.—Bagumba (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I agree regarding sports project navbox standards.
    • Regarding the four, now five WP::NAVBOX criteria, I quote the lead-in to the criteria: "Good templates generally follow some of these guidelines[.]" [emphasis mine] Criteria No. 3 is qualified with the words "to the extent reasonable," and has been regularly ignored in TfD discussions because of the qualifier. Criteria No. 5, whatever its intended application, was added by a single editor without talk page discussion last September and arguably merits a good, long talk page RfC. Middle-of-the-night changes like this one make me wish I had previously watch-listed the guideline. Bottom line: given the "good templates generally follow some of these guidelines" language, no single criteria is determinative. My rule of thumb is "does it fail a majority of the criteria," but that's just my own thinking. Personally, I don't think IAR should be invoked to keep a perfectly valid navbox; if it's necessary to invoke IAR, then there's a problem with the phrasing of the guideline itself.
    • The simple solution to CBB conference championship navboxes is a Wikiproject consensus for or against. Personally, I think they're clutter, but I can live with the project consensus, whatever it may be. WP:CFB already has an explicit consensus against conference championship navboxes, as well as most conference-level awards and honors. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
      • "generally follow some of these guidelines": The problem is that most of the ones we are deleting do meet "some" of the criteria, usually #1 "All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject." and #4 "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template." So it does appear consensus at TfDs expects at least a majority. I think the fact that deletion is subjective encourages editors to subjectively create them in hopes that their navbox is special enough to not be scrutinized. I believe coming up with a core list that generally must be met would close the gap. Requiring a per-navbox discussion is just not a scalable solution.—Bagumba (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
        • B, I agree that there is an element of subjectivity in TfD evaluations, and I have witnessed regular TfD discussion participants argue for the deletion or merge of a particular navbox simply because they don't particularly like it, even when 4 or 5 of the WP:NAVBOX criteria are satisfied. Unlike AfD, there seems to be a built-in bias to "delete" at TfD. That having been said, I absolutely believe the Wikiprojects can determine project-level standards for what subjects are acceptable for navboxes within their scope, by express consensus, so long as those standards do not attempt to loosen or contravene the Wikipedia-wide WP:NAVBOX guidelines. Just because a particular sports topic meets all four or five NAVBOX criteria does not mean that such a navbox must be accepted and kept by a particular Wikiproject. Quite the contrary; the only justification needed to exclude a particular topic is WP:NENAN.
        • As for particular criteria, I agree that No. 4 is usually the deciding one when the TfD is a close call. Because it requires a stand-alone article or list on the subject of the navbox, it also embodies the concept of notability. If the subject is not notable, there will be no stand-alone article, and therefore no navbox. Easy-peasy. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
          • NENANN is often dismissed as WP:JUSTANESSAY when project members band together. It's all very inconsistent. I know a while back that McDonalds AA Slam Dunk winner navbox was deleted pretty much because a standalone article didnt exist, but I'm pretty sure one could be created that met WP:LISTN if one was inclined. Not that I wanted the navbox, but it just illustrated that often people decide what navbox they do not want and then they apply guidelines that would support deleting other navboxes that they want to keep. Well, if you dont see value in improving the general WP:NAVBOX and would rather leave it at the project level, I won't pursue it. The more I look at these though, the more it seems the hockey project has more right than some people give them credit for.—Bagumba (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
            • Hey, B, don't let me rain on your NAVBOX parade. If you've got some good ideas for improving WP:NAVBOX, I would like to hear them. My only concern is that we should not be trying to build sports-specific navbox topic standards into a Wikipedia-wide guideline; that can be best handled at the Wikiproject level, where there is at least some level of understanding of the relative importance and notability of particular championships, awards and honors. If you would like to propose improvements of a general character to WP:NAVBOX, let's talk about them.
            • As for essays vs. guidelines, I think we've been chewing on the same topics at AfD and TfD long enough for you to know that I have a strong preference for policy and guidelines over some editor's opinion set forth in an essay. That having been said, if a consensus decides a particular TfD based on the freasoning of an essay, they can do that, too. WP:TfD specifically states "Templates for which none of these [reasons to delete a template] apply may be deleted by consensus[.]" Like AfDs for notable topics, there is nothing that guarantees a navbox for a particular subject if the consensus determines the subject is not appropriate. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
              • JUSTANESSAY wasn't a dig at you. Some essarys are crap, and some aren't specific or clean enough to apply in all cases, but some do make an awful lot of sense in the right scenario.—Bagumba (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

FA constraint

A criteria at WP:ELNO, "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article", made me think of using an FA-article's lead as a standard for constraining the topics worthy of a navbox. If the subject of a navbox is not significant enough to be mentioned in the lead of most FA articles, then it is not worthy of a navbox. A less-important topic like List of NCAA Division I men's basketball season steals leaders would be filtered out. Championship teams, major awards, etc. would be acceptable.—Bagumba (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

NFL free agency

I noticed you are in top of that, it seems like I'm the only administrator dealing with the rumors and such, semi pages. Secret ^account 01:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Secret, is Bagumba around? He helps with that in baseball, he would probably help with football too. Go Phightins! 01:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I have fewer NFL players on my watchlist, and am not really on top of the NFL rumors. I dont mind helping if someone points out specific pages, but putting it at WT:NFL would work best as I do watch that, and others can see too.—Bagumba (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Dirtlawyer1; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Lenin or FDR

I started the thread you requested here, but FTR, Lenin was added (by me) in favour of Mao, per the talk page discussion. Then Mao was soon added back by pbp, who also removed Lenin. Why didn't you ask pbp to first discuss his change? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Dirtlawyer1/Archives/2013. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 23:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 23:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

DragoLink08

I've received a couple emails from the network security team at USF, so I'm trying to get as much information compiled as I can. Have you seen any recent activity? They're eager to get the issue resolved. --auburnpilot talk 22:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

AP, this guy is a strong candidate for the most recent Drago sock: [1]. I'll double check my "sock hunter" watch list tonight and report back. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

AP, I reviewed my watch list and can discern no other obvious Drago socks based on his previous behavioral patterns (other than the Louis-B account, that is). That's not to say that he isn't currently running another sock or two; it's just that they don't stand out at this time. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I blocked that account before I signed off last night and included it in my most recent email. --auburnpilot talk 17:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Not canvassing

This was not WP:CANVASSING. It is neither spamming, campainging, vote-stacking or stealth (off-wiki) canvassing. IMHO you should self-revert. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Bushranger, I disagree and I will reply at length on the talk page for the RfA. Please give me a few minutes to do so. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

It is absolutely canvassing and if I remember correctly, something of this nature was used to derail your RfA. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Water under the bridge, ASO. I'm not voting in Binkster's RfA, but no RfA candidate, successful or otherwise, deserves to have any such taint attached to their candidacy in the midst of an already stressful process. BTW, given the rather vague language of WP:CANVASSING, it's a much closer call than you might think. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Input requested

Given your prior participation in a basketball category related discussion, your input is requested at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 19#Portland, Oregon sports players. Thanks! Jrcla2 (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I've responded to your comment at the CfM. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Jrcla, I fixed my comment per your reply. I also deleted your reply to my original comment, as I thought leaving it would only further confuse an already somewhat confusing situation. I hope that's okay. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

No worries about removing my comment. Thanks for the input. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Vital articles

Regarding your revert, there was discussion on the Talkpage there for both edits. Furthermore, discussion had seemed to die out; there have been just one edit (excluding myself) to the talk-page in 2.5 days. -- Ypnypn (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Ypnypn. Discussion has been ongoing for close to a month. Several of us have pointed out the need for better organized discussion, with separate !voting for each list item. The original list included a great of careful consideration and balanced approach by multiple editors, and changes likewise deserve some thought rather than unilateral bold changes. Please propose your changes in a new section on the talk page, and I will be happy to comment and so will others. We are also seeking to reactivate the project members and get wider participation Wikipedia-wide. Thanks for your patience and cooperation. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Cynthia Goyette

Yes, I do remember you, I'm afraid we're still clearing up that guy's copyright violations (there's another 6,000 or so pages left to check). The text in question was actually added in this edit by Darius, who copied it from the external link he added. Your edits just moved it around a bit. Feel free to readd the material if you can rephrase it to make is substantially different from Darius' version. Hut 8.5 20:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hut, I'm happy to comply, but I'm a little confused. I can't find the removed text, or any close paraphrase version of it, in the source cited in the edit summary: Boyette's Olympic athlete profile on Sports-Reference.com. Can you explain?

BTW, if you have other U.S. Olympic swimmers on your Darius copyvio list, let me know. I've been gradually chewing on all 650+ U.S. Olympic swimmer bios, upgrading them in phases. As far as I know, my overlap with Darius' editing interests are limited to U.S. swimmers; I know Darius' interests were international and included sports other than swimming. If you have more U.S. swimmers on your copyvio list, I would be happy to prioritize them so you could concentrate on other problematic articles with Darius issues. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Hut, let me know if the revised version of the Goyette bio resolves your copyvio issue. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

It's clearly there, under "Biography" here (compare with the bit of prose added in this). Your rewrite is fine so you don't need to worry about it.

The list of outstanding articles can be found in the 24 subpages of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo - anything without an annotation on it has yet to be checked. They aren't organised by subject matter, but it might be possible for me to produce a list of US swimmers on there. I'll have to get back to you later. Hut 8.5 22:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hut, I've reviewed about two thirds of the Darius copyvio lists. Just by scrolling through them, I found the following U.S. swimmers for whom I will assume responsibility for a complete rewrite in order to eliminate any possible copyvios:

• James Counsilman
• Donna de Varona
• Tom Dolan
• Claudia Franco (Spanish-American; attended University of Florida)
• Gary Hall, Jr.
• John Hencken
• Megan Jendrick
• Pablo Morales
• John Naber
• Mark Spitz
• Julia Smit
• Jenny Thompson
• Dara Torres
• William Yorzyk

These four were marked as "cleaned," but I will also assume responsibility for double-checking Darius' edits and making sure there are no remaining copyvio issues:

• Steve Furniss
• Norman Ross
• Allen Stack
• Chris von Saltza

These are just the U.S. swimmers I recognized by scrolling through the Darius copyvio lists. If you have the ability to sort these Darius copyvio lists against Category:Olympic swimmers of the United States, Category:Florida Gators women's swimmers and Category:Florida Gators women's swimmers, I will gladly assume responsibility for any others you can find. After that, I see that there are also a number of Olympic swimming articles on the list, too. If you can perform a sort that can create a list of Olympic swimming articles with copyvios, I can hit those after completing the U.S. swimmer bios. It's a small slice of the thousands left on the list, but I hope this helps a bit. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I can produce such a list but it'll take some mucking around, I'll have a go tomorrow. Thanks for offering to help. Hut 8.5 23:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I've come up with this and this, I can repeat with other categories if you want. There's no need to rewrite material that has been marked as checked, material that wasn't added by Darius, or even material that was added by Darius in many circumstances. The rule of thumb is that Darius was basically incapable of writing original prose. If he added some prose to an article that is anything other than a bald summary of statistics then it is very likely copyvio, especially if it is at all elaborate or flowery. If you can't find the source that the material was copied from then that doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't copied. Much of this stuff was added 6-7 years ago and the website he copied the material from may have disappeared in the meantime. It is permissible to remove content added by a persistent plagiarist as a potential copyright violation even if you can't find the source. Edits which merely update sports results, templates or other statistics are probably OK and don't need removal or rewriting. Hut 8.5 14:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Hut. It looks like the vast majority of the swimmers on your first list are within the scope of my working areas; fewer so from the second list. I'll start systematically working my way through the listed articles. May I assume that I can make notations on these working lists?

Darius certainly created a mess. I find that it's often far easier to create new articles from scratch than it is to clean up existing text, especially existing text where previous authors could not be bothered to include any footnotes. In many cases, it is nearly impossible to source existing text, to determine whether it constitutes some form of original research, or even worse in some cases, whether it represents the intentional insertion of false information. Interesting work, to say the least. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

MOS

Thanks, I'll take a read and join in the discussion when I find the time. GiantSnowman 17:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You may want to just read the introduction and then skip to Peter Coxhead's summary of the issues at the bottom, GS. A lot of what's in between is sturm und drang. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Vital Articles

Hi DL1. Earlier today you asked for my continued participation in the dustup at the Vital Articles pages. One frustrating thing is that the breakup into 10 - 100 - 1,000 - and 10,000 means there are four talk pages regarding the four lists, with several very long talkpages being confusing. In my thinking, one central place is needed to regularize matters. That place, logically, should be the over-arching Wikipedia:WikiProject Vital Articles pages, of which you may already be aware but are not a member of. I have just joined it myself, and I see PBP is already a member. At the talk page there, we can all hopefully establish a centralized discussion regarding goals, methods, priorities and pacing of proposed changes.

Also, we need to ensure that the proposed changes do not conflict with WP:CORE which is highly similar and which, frankly, I find redundant in some ways. In any case, my hope is that you, Gabe and others involved in the current effort at "Vital" can join PBP and I in this WikiProject and that we can entice others formerly involved here to add their expertise to the mix. With best wishes, Jusdafax 02:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I have put my user name on the membership roster of both the Core and Vital article projects. How would you suggest we proceed? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Let's notify historical members of the Wikiproject. I'd like to see a half dozen or so new voices added to the mix regarding the last month of upheaval in the 1000 and 10000 lists. I'd also suggest leaving the 10000 list alone as hopeless for the moment, and draw a bright line at the 1000. Gabe, who I have worked with before, is on a bad roll here, having made some highly intemperate personal attacks in the past few days that I find highly off-putting. He is also not responding to my cautionary statements.

I don't know about you, but a huge gruelling timesink is something I can't indulge in at this moment. Things could change very quickly, and I will keep checking in with you and on the various "fronts." Again, anyone with a historical interest in these articles and lists is a valid person to contact. A number of big-ticket philosophical issues have been raised that are worthy of measured discussion. It may take some few days to get that rolling. Jusdafax 03:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Without pointing fingers, it takes two or more to tango, and there appears to be plenty of blame to spread among recent participants regarding their "intemperate" choice of words. Proceeding on an article-by-article basis, prompting a more organized and structured talk page discussion, and adding or deleting list items only after talk page discussion and !voting should help reduce the rhetoric level. As recently as this morning, another new editor deleted and added several list items; I reverted and invited him to join the talk page discussion. That should be the default position of all discussion participants, at least for the foreseeable future.

Regarding the potential for this discussion to become a "grueling timesink," I certainly can see that possibility. I intend to prompt the move to better organization and structure, and then only to participate in the discussion of those subjects in which I have a decent background or otherwise have an interest. If we can maintain our active participation so long as to force better organization, structure and participation, we will have done good work.

I see the vital lists as serving a good purpose, but they should not be treated as either sacrosanct or a functional "honor" for the listed articles. The listed articles represent "core" topics, and in many instances are included as important representative examples of larger categories. In many ways, the 1,000-article list, as it existed before the present activity started in the past month, appeared to be relatively well thought-out and balanced. I am wary of mass changes, or a wholesale reorientation of the list structure from specific to more general topics. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, I agree with you in every particular. I spent a bit of time today trying to cool down Gabe and Pbp on the expanded lists talkpage, when they became heated and borderline abusive. I would hate to see the need to request an admin to issue warnings (yes I do see the irony) but we appear headed in that direction. Thanks for your thoughts and work on this topic. Jusdafax 05:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Gators logos

How do you feel about the Gators script logo being used in team season infoboxes? Specifically basketball, which does not use the script logo on any uniforms or playing surface. I think maybe the Gator head logo or the new Florida script would be a better representative. I'm not really good with changing images so I thought I would ask your opinion. ~ Richmond96 T • C 00:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

R96, there is a serious issue with the overuse of the non-free image of the Gator head logo. There was a big stink raised two years ago because the Gator head logo is used more than all but a handful of other non-free images on Wikipedia. The resulting de facto compromise is that we use the non-free logo only on the primary Gators team pages, and no where else, including season, rivalry or game pages. Heck, I even deleted the logo from the sports section of the main University of Florida article to eliminate one use. If we breach that de facto compromise, and attract attention to this issue again, we risk losing most of the currently existing uses of the logo as "over use" of a non-free image. Suffice it to say I really don't want to open that can of worms if I can avoid it. You may want to read the documentation on the image file page (just click on any use of the Gator head logo) and the explanation on the file talk page. We can talk more by email if you need further explanation. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I was not aware of that, thanks. I can definitely see that it's better left the way it is. My only other questions are (1) Should we upload the new version of the Gator head? and (2) Would it be preferable to use the new "FLORIDA" script in team season infoboxes? ~ Richmond96 T • C 01:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

From the example linked, it appears the slightly older version of the Gator head has better contrast for the dark green and dark blue, but I suppose that could just be the particular example. The new italic "Florida" logo probably should be uploaded. Not sure when to use it versus the script "Gators" logo. Don't upload a version of the italic logo that includes the Gator head, however; it has same problem as the stand-alone Gator head. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest using the new "Florida" script on basketball and baseball pages since it is used in those sports. Trouble is, I can't seem to find a good image of it on the internet. Anyway, is it okay to proceed with uploading the new Gator head logo using the image here? ~ Richmond96 T • C 02:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure -- that looks pretty darn official. Upload it to the existing file, and remember to update the documentation, including the source location. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The deed is done. The only problem is that I wasn't able to make the background of the image transparent as I do not have a program capable of editing SVG files. ~ Richmond96 T • C 03:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Template request

So, ya... What exactly do you want to do to it? After first look, I'm thinking you might be better to build a new template for coaching and remove the coaching stuffs from the current template... This would of course require a lot of leg work for the transition. Thoughts? — User:Technical 13   ( C • M • Click to learn how to view this signature as intended ) 01:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

T13, you really have no idea how ironic your suggestion is. There was a merge TfD that is prompting the elimination of the old NFL coaches infobox . . . which, to put it delicately, involved some controversy. I can provide links and details if you enjoy drama. Ideally, however, there should be no reason why NFL players and coaches should bot be presented in the same infobox template, especially given the typical NFL and CFB player background of the coaches. Bottom line: this represents an opportunity for WP:NFL to build a better infobox, prioritize the contents, and make some needed choices. That's where the internal WikiProject politics will come in after we do a mockup. That's do-able, but it will require some patience.

To start, I would be interested in getting your impression of the existing coding . . . is it done properly? Also, I would like to employ a small working committee on this project, if you're amenable. The other likely coder for the project is User:Frietjes. Do you know her or her work? She's a regular at TfD. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I would be interested in the discussion about it actually. I'm not opposed to working with others as a team, as long as the other(s) remember to always WP:AGF. Frietjes (talk · contribs) and I got off on the wrong foot, and I would hope that she would be as willing as I to set that aside even if it is rather fresh. As I said on one of the other pages, some of the argument names are confusing and hard to follow for someone that isn't very NFL lingo/slang aware. There could probably be some improvement there. If the discussions you mention are leaning towards a single template, it would be possible to still create it as two templates to allow the "Player" template to be efficient and fast without being bogged down by extra coding AND still have the end result "LOOK" like it is a single template that outputs to one box. — User:Technical 13   ( C • M • Click to learn how to view this signature as intended ) 02:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The code could surely use a cleaning up. The unpopulated template takes <!-- Served by mw1094 in 2.307 secs. -->. I think that by stripping the coaching section out of this template and putting it in its own (which can load as an argument of this template when needed, the load time could be reduced by 1 second (that is about 43% shaved off). — User:Technical 13   ( C • M • Click to learn how to view this signature as intended ) 19:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

That's the sort of analysis I was hoping for. Given the size of this beast, I'm looking for elegant solutions.

I think we're probably stuck with the merge of player and coach elements, but how we best accomplish that is to be decided. Is it possible to include the coach parameters as a separate "module" which is only included when needed? At last count, there were over 11,000 NFL player articles, but only a few hundred NFL coaches. If we can make the load time of the 11,000 more efficient by only including the optional coach elements when actually needed, that would make a great deal of sense.

It might be a good idea to set up a working prototype version in user space/sandbox. That way, we can chew on it and test test-drive it without interfering with the present transclusions.

As for the requested "background," I will send you links by email. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten about this project. I've recently had some RL issues come up, and I'll start working on your mock-up on Monday or Tuesday coming up. I apologize for the delay. I still haven't gotten those "background" links, and I'm assuming I probably won't at this point. They would have been useful to me for the purposes of building a new template to be able to address specific concerns people have. Anyways, I hope you have a nice Easter (if you observe it) weekend (nice weekend either way)! — User:Technical 13   ( C • M • Click to learn how to view this signature as intended ) 13:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Burton Lawless

Hi, I did add references: 5.^ http://www.gainesville.com/article/20060723/GATORS70/60720018?tc=ar 9.^ http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=950&dat=19840111&id=_rdaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ZVkDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6564,2325966

Do you need more references ? Tecmo (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please. Specifically, your additions to the article need sources for (1) the "Dirty Dozen Draft" (Wikipedia article of same name has one source with no list of players, including Lawless); (2) Lawless and Mitch Hoopes were only Cowboys rookies to become starters in 1975; (3) replaced John Niland at left guard; (4) first offensive lineman rookie to start Super Bowl since 1965; (5) Herb Scott's play forced him into platoon role; (6) injuries to other player allowed him to become starter again; (7) alternated with Tom Rafferty; (8) trade to Dolphins; (9) release from Dolphins; (10) free agent signing with Detroit in 1980; (11) signed to Dolphins roster for last 5 games of season; and (12) 1982 contract with the Bears. All of the foregoing additions are presently unsupported by the two references above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Question

I'm curious, why haven't you reverted Carl's recent undiscussed deletions, and asked him to first discuss, as you have with me? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Gabe, I haven't really been participating in the discussion for the list of 10,000 Vital Articles, because I have far less interest in arguing the fine points of 20th Century pop culture and its icons, which seems to be the discussion's current focus. (My advice: set a number limit for each category, then prioritize.) In answer to your question above, though, I think everyone should play by the same rules. Good for the goose, good for the gander, as they say. I see where PBP just reverted another user's edits to the list, and asked him to discuss the changes first. Do you want me to join the list of 10,000 discussion? I may not be as vocal about Milton Berle and Frank Sinatra as I was about horse, Lenin and Lincoln, but I'm happy to join the conversation if you think that would be helpful. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I just want a level playing field, as you said above: "[what's] good for the goose, [is] good for the gander", and I think pbp is not holding everyone to the same strict standard to which he is holding me, or those he disagrees with. I don't mind being reverted for adding/removing without discussion, per WP:BRD, but when others aren't that smacks of a double-standard. I think, if you reverted me for making changes without discussion, then you should also revert Carl, or pbp for those same reasons. Here is a recent undiscussed removal by Carl that has also not been reverted. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

You are right, sir, and I have reverted Carl for undiscussed changes on the list of 1,000. Only had to do it once, and everyone is discussing proposed changes on the list of 1,000 talk page now. I'll jump into the list of 10,000 discussion, and start monitoring the actual list edits more carefully. Hope that helps. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

It does help, thanks much DL1. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Gabe, just saw your second diff above; it's two and half weeks old and getting a little ripe for a revert by someone new to the discission. If you raise the issue as a point of discussion on the talk page, I will back your call for discussion on point. I don't recognize the person(s) involved, and further discussion may render the same result, but that would at least be the result of a level playing field, right? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Right, well, I think this is already reaching the critical mass of Wikitedium, so I won't bother with a discussion about the removal, because, as you said above, its two weeks old. Do you intend to do anything about the more recent removals? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look-see at the recent changes tonight, but the list of 10,000 seems to be in a much greater state of play than the list of 1,000. At some level, I guess that makes sense; the bigger list affords more opportunities for flexibility and changes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

So, are you saying that I should feel as free as Carl to add/remove without discussion from the 10,000 list? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

No, not at all. Just noting that it's a bigger list, and more items are in play. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

So, are Carl's recent undiscussed removals valid IYO? I'm confused, are you now supporting the double-standard, or agreeing with me that it should not be that way? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to be consistent: everyone proposes, everyone discusses, then we delete or add. Although I must say I'm going to vote to delete Martin Short and . . . Jennifer Saunders? Who the heck is she? Looks like there many other deletion candidates on the existing list of comedians. But let's keep that on the talk page for the list. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you intend to revert Carl as you have reverted me? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Gabe, I'm late to the list of 10,000 party. It appears that Short and Saunders were part of a list proposed list of comedians to delete, dating back a week or more. It also appears that you support Carl's removal of these two in a comment from yesterday. Not sure what you want me to do, given the circumstances. Personally, I would have preferred more discussion on point, but like I said, I'm new to the list of 10,000, and I'm not inclined to start reverting folks as my first contributions to the discussion (unless they're pretty egregiously unilateral in nature). These do not appear to be so. Please give me a chance to get my feet wet. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• How about this undiscussed deletion where Carl removed Moms Mabley and four others with no prior discussion. So I'll ask you again, are you enforcing a double-standard against me, or are you going to hold your Wikibuddies to the same standard that you are holding me? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Gabe, you're seeing things that simply aren't there. Yes, I have worked with PBP on sports articles in the past; no, we are not coordinating our VA activities, and, no, I am not attempting to "enforce a double standard." Your use of the term "wikibuddies" implies some sort of conspiracy or alliance to defeat you; there is none that involves me. I think you will find that I disagree with PBP (and the others, with whom I had no prior relationship of any kind) as often as I agree with him (and them) in the particulars. Frankly, I think I've been evenhanded in my comments, and in my pleas for you and PBP to tone down your comments directed at each other and to work together. It appears that both of you are trying to do that now. Please try to extend the same benefit of the doubt to me. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

May I add my two cents? Gabe, please assume good faith here for DL1. I think he's been remarkably fair in this discussion. As you are well aware, I have been trying to slow the blizzard of proposals and counter proposals, and I see that you have joined in the process regarding the proposed moratorium per the core contest. I also thank you, as our Talkpage host notes, for a cooldown on the rhetorical exchanges. I think the time to discuss previous deletions and additions, some made with no notice or a very small !vote count, will be during the proposed moratorium, which seems likely to begin in the next few weeks at the latest. Jusdafax 21:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Then why dodge the above simple question? If you only revert me and not Carl, then that's a double standard, not? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

God damn it, Gabe. I am trying to review what's been done in the last 24 hours, and I can't do that when you keep pinging my talk page with your complaints. I am not in charge, but I am trying to help. The judicious exercise of your patience and maturity, and avoidance of ill-considered accusations, might help. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

1) There is no need for blasphemy on Easter Sunday, 2) you certainly acted like you were in charge when you were reverting me, 3) now Carl is hacking away at the list without any discussion whatsoever, and no one is stopping him from doing what you stopped me from doing. Be a good admin, find some neutrality, and stop favouring your Wikibuddies, then demand from me the good-faith that you think you deserve. FWIW, Jusdafax has asked them to stop cutting bios, and he agrees with me regarding Carl's need to slow down. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Gabe, it's time to speak bluntly and openly. First of all, I am not an administrator; I'm an ordinary editor, without any special authority. Second, none of the other VA participants are my "wikibuddies," however you may care to define that term. Third, I have previously reverted VA edits by you, Carl and PBP when such changes were either unilateral or I thought they lacked consensus or adequate participation, and I have just rolled back all of Carl's edits to the bio sublist from March 30, 2013, after review, for the same reasons. (I have also added all of the subpages from the list of 10,000 to my watchlist, so I will now follow all changes to the list of 10,000.) Fourth, if you can't perceive that I am doing my level best to act even-handedly in these discussions, well . . . tough toenails. I strongly suggest the perception problem may be yours, not mine. Fifth, tit-for-tat discussions and accusations are not welcome on my talk page. Please alter your communication paradigm, or you will quickly find yourself in a one-sided "conversation."

Lastly, I don't pretend to know you nor understand your personal issues, but I surely do not appreciate your accusations and overwrought rhetoric. Next time you express yourself in those terms on my talk page, I will simply delete your comments without further acknowledgement. It's your choice: you can choose to behave in an adult and collegial manner and contain your rhetorical impulses, and I will continue to participate and help you and the other VA discussion participants. You can choose otherwise, and you will simply be ignored and your comments deleted. It's completely up to you. No further response is required from you at this time. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)