Talk:Kerwin Waldroup
Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
 | This page was proposed for deletion by 67.101.6.169 (talk · contribs) on 8 October 2011 with the comment: Lack of references prevents GNG from being established, as reflected in JustAGal's May 2009 update of the article in which the description of his highlights became "No notable achievements" It was contested by TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) on 12 October 2011 with the comment: WP:N clear from link in info box. Passes WP:ATHLETE without question |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from Kerwin Waldroup appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 October 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
Removal of place of birth
editWould the editor who deleted the place of birth from the lede please restore it to the article? The guideline pointed to -- which, I should point out, has waffled back and forth over the years (as encyclopedias generally list the place of birth adjacent to the mention of the date of birth) -- is reason at best to move the place of birth out of the first sentence, to lower in the article. But it is a formatting guideline. It is not reason for deletion. Deleting it here is akin to deleting a quote, because a period falls within it rather than outside of it. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- WP:OPENPARAGRAPH states: Birth and death places should be mentioned in the body if known, and in the lead if they are relevant to the person's notability. I don't see how Waldroup's birthplace is significant enough to keep it in the lead. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- I apologize for not being clear enough. We can address the guideline at another time -- as I say, it has waffled back and forth, and while in its present form it says what you indicate, it has per consensus discussion said the opposite in the past -- so that we would be in line with other encyclopedias, and with common sense (why split the date of birth, from the location?). The immediate point I was seeking to make is that if you are going to delete it from the lede, you should I would suggest move it to further down in the article, rather than delete it from the article. I don't believe that is what was done. Simply deleting the content, on the basis of a formatting issue, deletes clearly encyclopedic information from the Project without any reason other than a guideline that is focused on style formatting -- not content. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- What does it matter what other encyclopedias do? I agree that the birthplace should probably be in the body somewhere, but it doesn't fit in anywhere right now. It's still in the infobox, by the way, so the content is not "lost." Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- The infobox, like the lede, is only supposed to be a summary of the text of the body of the article. It should be in the text of the body of the article. The infobox is not "the body". The quote you supplied above states that "Birth and death places should be mentioned in the body if known". As to your other point, as I said that is tangential to my main point here, which is that rather than delete such information from the text of the article for a formatting reason, you should (if need be ...) move it in accord with the guideline you cited to me. But, to address it, it is important what other encyclopedias do -- much of what we include or do not include is on the basis of what is "encyclopedic", and that is determined by taking note of what encyclopedias do -- any other test of that term is purely subjective, of course. In addition, as I said, there is no logic to split -- into wholly different sections of an article -- the DATE of birth and the LOCATION of birth. That falls under our commonsense guideline. But, we will just have to fix the guideline (once again) to address that at some point.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- I've added the birthplace to the body of the article. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Many thanks. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- I've added the birthplace to the body of the article. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- The infobox, like the lede, is only supposed to be a summary of the text of the body of the article. It should be in the text of the body of the article. The infobox is not "the body". The quote you supplied above states that "Birth and death places should be mentioned in the body if known". As to your other point, as I said that is tangential to my main point here, which is that rather than delete such information from the text of the article for a formatting reason, you should (if need be ...) move it in accord with the guideline you cited to me. But, to address it, it is important what other encyclopedias do -- much of what we include or do not include is on the basis of what is "encyclopedic", and that is determined by taking note of what encyclopedias do -- any other test of that term is purely subjective, of course. In addition, as I said, there is no logic to split -- into wholly different sections of an article -- the DATE of birth and the LOCATION of birth. That falls under our commonsense guideline. But, we will just have to fix the guideline (once again) to address that at some point.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- What does it matter what other encyclopedias do? I agree that the birthplace should probably be in the body somewhere, but it doesn't fit in anywhere right now. It's still in the infobox, by the way, so the content is not "lost." Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- I apologize for not being clear enough. We can address the guideline at another time -- as I say, it has waffled back and forth, and while in its present form it says what you indicate, it has per consensus discussion said the opposite in the past -- so that we would be in line with other encyclopedias, and with common sense (why split the date of birth, from the location?). The immediate point I was seeking to make is that if you are going to delete it from the lede, you should I would suggest move it to further down in the article, rather than delete it from the article. I don't believe that is what was done. Simply deleting the content, on the basis of a formatting issue, deletes clearly encyclopedic information from the Project without any reason other than a guideline that is focused on style formatting -- not content. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Kerwin Waldroup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928200732/http://141.211.39.65/allroster/fbsearch.htm to http://141.211.39.65/allroster/fbsearch.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071112175906/http://stats.ath.umich.edu/football/footstart.php to http://stats.ath.umich.edu/football/footstart.php
- Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://www.news4jax.com/news/10471742/detail.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)