User talk:Dirtlawyer1/Archives/2015/June
 | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
@Alakzi: BTW, when you have some time, we need to discuss what to do with those American football game/championship infoboxes. I finally spent some time looking at the parameters and the actual uses, and I have several suggestions that might make a consolidation more palatable and more effective for users. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Sure. I've converted the Super Bowl box to get a feel of the conversion; I don't think that merging all parameters indiscriminately would be prudent, exactly, but users of these infoboxes haven't stepped up to offer any suggestions. Alakzi (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Alakzi: From the standpoint of a back-to-basics sports editor, the fundamental problem with a straight merge is that the Super Bowl box has a bunch of marginally relevant optional parameters that should not be available for other uses. I recognize, however, that the core parameters are the same, and there is no reason why the layout and design should not be the same. Several of these templates are natural merges: (1) The NFL championship game (predecessor of the Super Bowl) with the old AFL championship game, to which the UFL championship game (only 3 transclusions) could be added; call it "Infobox American football championship game." Ditto for the World Bowl and Belgian Bowl. The Arena Bowl requires one additional option: Arena (rather than stadium), because arena ball is played indoors, and the venue is not called a "stadium." The "Iron Man" option can be deleted; it's not being used in any of the existing transclusions, so it won't be missed. That leaves the question about what to do about the fan-crufty Super Bowl-specific options, like "National Anthem Singer" and "Half-Time Show," which should not be permitted to be imported into the more general uses. I suggest you use the new "Infobox American football championship game" as the base template, with a wrap and a module for the Super Bowl, and then maintain separate instructions for the Super Bowl. Anyway, those are my thoughts, and I wanted to bounce them off you first before dragging the TfD discussion down a tangent. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
@Alakzi: Given the concerns expressed regarding excluding the Super Bowl-specific parameters from the more general uses, what would you suggest from a structure standpoint? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Parameters exclusive to Super Bowl could be made inoperable depending on the value of the
|championship=parameter. Alakzi (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)- I suppose it might be to our advantage that there's nobody to close TfDs. ;-) Alakzi (talk) 23:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Alakzi: That sounds vaguely conspiratorial. What sort of trouble are you drawing me into now? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm kidding. I thought you might've wanted to comment at the football infoboxes TfD, but it looks like you've been keeping busy with other things. Alakzi (talk) 00:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Alakzi -- I get that you guys are pals here, but you probably could have done well to let an editor not involved with me or Dirt to do the honors. Appearances, and all that ... especially when you categorize the right to !vote of a nom as "off-topic." --Epeefleche (talk) 03:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- I appreciate the move to ... though while still hatting it as Dirt had .. you made the hat note NPOV. Epeefleche (talk) 04:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Epeefleche's edit summary: "If an uninvolved editor wishes to hat it, with an appropriate summary, I defer." Be careful what you ask for; in this case, you got it. And for the record, Epee, Alakzi and I disagree on points of substance nearly as often as we agree, but we're always civil to each other, and, as a result we keep each other honest. Except for that one time I called him a "poopyhead," and I later apologized for that. Alakzi is definitely not a poopyhead. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- I appreciate the move to ... though while still hatting it as Dirt had .. you made the hat note NPOV. Epeefleche (talk) 04:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Alakzi -- I get that you guys are pals here, but you probably could have done well to let an editor not involved with me or Dirt to do the honors. Appearances, and all that ... especially when you categorize the right to !vote of a nom as "off-topic." --Epeefleche (talk) 03:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm kidding. I thought you might've wanted to comment at the football infoboxes TfD, but it looks like you've been keeping busy with other things. Alakzi (talk) 00:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Alakzi: That sounds vaguely conspiratorial. What sort of trouble are you drawing me into now? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- I suppose it might be to our advantage that there's nobody to close TfDs. ;-) Alakzi (talk) 23:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
We've got a month-long backlog now, which is frustrating for me to see because I'd have been very willing and (I think) capable to close all of these discussions (and non-discussions). Maybe I should find something other than Wikipedia to waste my time on. Alakzi (talk) 23:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Alakzi: Don't get too far ahead of yourself -- just yet. Rack up some article content edits, find a subject area or two of interest to participate in AfDs, avoid personal controversy like the plague, and keep those occasional flashes of righteous anger under wraps. I see no reason why we should not stand you up for RfA sometime after your one-year anniversary. In the mean time, continue to be the sympathetic template editor who helps non-TE editors, and work to find the reasonable middle ground at TfD. Then you can close whatever you want. Of course, you can continue to close the non-controversial "keep" and WP:G7 "speedy delete" TfDs now; that will help clear some of the easy backlog.
- Until then, let's cultivate some of the more clueful admins like Opabinia to take on some TfD closes. If we could get just one or two TfD closes per day from her, as she deepens her knowledge of the template game, that would greatly alleviate the current situation. What we need is a pool of her and three or four more like her to close TfDs. That would be a manageable and smallish number of closes for all admins concerned. I'm still contemplating who else we can recruit -- why don't you ask Bagumba if he would be willing to close a half dozen TfDs per week? He knows more than enough to close most of the basic NAVBOX TfDs already, and he has a nose for finding, reading and absorbing relevant guidelines.
- Oh, and if you're looking for something creative to fill your plate, let's focus on the NCAA team infobox project . . . . Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for the advice. Opabinia posed a question at WT:TFD that you might be in a better position to answer than me.
Oh, and if you're looking for something creative ...
heh, yeah, I can't seem to keep my focus on one single thing for too long. I made this the other day to facilitate the replacement of the myriad country at games infoboxes, many of which contain a lengthy list of appearances. Alakzi (talk) 02:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)- Looks promising. Anything that would further simplify the "team at games" infoboxes would be beneficial. You saw my comments on point earlier. Your simplifications were significant improvements to that merged template. Let me know when you've got some time to work on the NCAA infoboxes -- I'm now unexpectedly consumed with migrating persondata name variants to Wikidata for the articles on my watch lists. FYI, the RfC closing admin suggested that persondata removal process should not be done in any rush -- as I suspected he would. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for the advice. Opabinia posed a question at WT:TFD that you might be in a better position to answer than me.
Cricket
Hi. You may wish to put your note about Persondata also on the WT:CRIC page as there are huge numbers of cricket biographies within the project there. Thanks. Johnlp (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Johnlp: John, I would be happy to provide WP:Cricket with a notice/warning re Persondata if you could provide two examples of notable recent players so that I can include them as examples in the notice. Pardon my ignorance, but even after a year of university in England, I never quite got the hang of the sport and I claim complete ignorance of its notable players. I did, however, appreciate being invited to matches and indulged with gin and tonics. Vive la difference among our Anglophone cousins! Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Try Brendon McCullum as the New Zealand captain who has just won a Test match against England in England (fairly rare event), and Virat Kohli as the Indian captain whose page is probably one of the most edited, currently, on WP. The aim of cricket is, of course, to confuse potential opponents; you do, however, seem to have picked up the fundamental unwritten rule, which is that everything makes "sense" after a few glasses of G&T or, preferably, Pimm's. Thanks. Johnlp (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Johnlp: What is the proper term for an athlete who plays cricket: "cricketer" or "cricket player"? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Either. Historically, there are connotations with the word "player" in that the players were the professionals where the amateurs termed themselves "gentlemen"; there used to be a series of annual fixtures called Gentlemen v Players. The distinction was ended from the start of the 1963 English cricket season after which everyone was termed a "cricketer" whether or not they received any remuneration for playing. Now, 50+ years on, "cricketer" is probably still the better term (and shorter), but "cricket player" works as well. Americans (particularly) sometimes use "cricketeer", but that is just plain wrong. Johnlp (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Good trivia to know, John. We Americans like those frenchy-sounding endings -- makes us feel all sophisticated. Whereas the Brits intentionally mispronounce French words just to irritate them.
Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Good trivia to know, John. We Americans like those frenchy-sounding endings -- makes us feel all sophisticated. Whereas the Brits intentionally mispronounce French words just to irritate them.
- Either. Historically, there are connotations with the word "player" in that the players were the professionals where the amateurs termed themselves "gentlemen"; there used to be a series of annual fixtures called Gentlemen v Players. The distinction was ended from the start of the 1963 English cricket season after which everyone was termed a "cricketer" whether or not they received any remuneration for playing. Now, 50+ years on, "cricketer" is probably still the better term (and shorter), but "cricket player" works as well. Americans (particularly) sometimes use "cricketeer", but that is just plain wrong. Johnlp (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Johnlp: What is the proper term for an athlete who plays cricket: "cricketer" or "cricket player"? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Try Brendon McCullum as the New Zealand captain who has just won a Test match against England in England (fairly rare event), and Virat Kohli as the Indian captain whose page is probably one of the most edited, currently, on WP. The aim of cricket is, of course, to confuse potential opponents; you do, however, seem to have picked up the fundamental unwritten rule, which is that everything makes "sense" after a few glasses of G&T or, preferably, Pimm's. Thanks. Johnlp (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
June 2015
Hello, I'm Stesmo. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Fredric G. Levin College of Law, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Stesmo (talk) 03:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Stesmo: The U.S. News & World Report annual university and graduate school ratings are the most widely used and reported university ratings in the United States. Before you delete anymore U.S. News ratings from American university articles, I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the different elements of the U.S. News "Best Colleges" website, and then seriously consider adding the footnote links yourself rather than deleting the related article content. You will find these ratings are listed for virtually every major national university in the country. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- BTW, simply citing to the 2015 U.S. News "Best Colleges" hard-copy edition is sufficient; there is no obligation to link to an online reference per WP:V and WP:RS. That said, the online edition supports all of the rankings cited (No. 47 overall, No. 2 LL.M. tax program, and No. 9 J.D. environmental law program). Please read the linked references before making yourself look foolish. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Drive-by thanks...
It's refreshing to see we still have editors who respect BLPs. If you want to see the epitome of coatracks,, read G. Edward Griffin....provided you can get past the lead. They tried to get that BLP deleted 4 different times. Unbelievable. Aside from citing 30+ year old research and garbage like Popular Paranoia as a source for contentious labels the information is not accurate. Happy editing! --Atsme📞📧 00:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Not me
I didn't put back "Champions." BenYes? 17:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Benhen1997: Fair enough, sir. I was just typing an explanatory message on your talk page. Apparently I need to leave it elsewhere. Sorry about that. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- FYI: [1]. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
There's a proposal
Not sure if you've seen this on other user talk pages, but there is a new WikiProject proposal made by GWFrog: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Collegiate sports (USA). Corkythehornetfan 00:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Q re wikidata
Hello, I was wondering, in the case of a given name where there is probably only one instance of its use on Wiki, is it OK to create a new item? Examples Sir Gawaine Baillie (Gawain, with no 'e' does exist) and Sir Lenny (Lenworth) Henry. Ta. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 01:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Eagleash: Could you be more specific? I'm not sure I understand your question -- what do you mean by a "new item"? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Sports notability revert
Hello Dirtlawyer1. I'm somewhat bemused by your revert of my rewording of WP:NSEASONS. The wording change actually tightens up the guideline, making it more restrictive, not less. At the moment, some editors are taking "professional" to include all forms of professionalism, including semi-professional leagues. As a result, clubs in top level divisions in countries like the Faroe Islands could be deemed to be allowed an article. There have been numerous AfDs on season articles that fall under WP:FOOTY, which have coalesced into a clear consensus that it should be limited to fully-professional leagues. Would you consider restoring the change? Thanks, Number 57 10:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Number 57: There are many more sports on planet earth than association football, many of which have fully professional minor leagues, including, for example, American baseball. Your phrasing would include those fully professional minor leagues. I suggest that you take this issue back to WP:FOOTY, and consult with knowledgeable editors such as User:GiantSnowman, and return with proposed language that is specifically applicable to association football, and is not susceptible to being misconstrued for many other sports. In my opinion, the proper way to do that is to create a specific standard for association football seasons, not broadly over-inclusive language that includes all sports. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- OK, football-specific wording seems to be the way forward. Cheers, Number 57 10:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I also left a message for GiantSnowman on his talk page. I certainly don't want any wiggle room for NSEASONS being misconstrued as license to create season articles for the football teams of the Faroe Islands league. The idea behind NSEASONS was to tighten the standard for most American sports seasons, not loosen it for association football everywhere else. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- OK. Just an FYI, as far as I am aware, it is not being used to create article on top level clubs in the Faroes (I just used this as an example that it could be), but the potential for misinterpretation is being used in other ways. There are more members of WP:FOOTY than GiantSnowman by the way (not that he isn't a knowledgable editor, but there are several others with expertise and familiarity who I feel it would be unfair to exclude if you were seeking wider discussion). Number 57 10:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- No, sir, not trying to exclude anyone. Just trying to get the conversation started. I anticipate y'all will have an informed discussion on the WP:FOOTY talk page and return to NSEASONS with consensus language specifically applicable to association football seasons. I will, of course, support whatever football-specific standard the WP:FOOTY crew thinks best. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- OK. Just an FYI, as far as I am aware, it is not being used to create article on top level clubs in the Faroes (I just used this as an example that it could be), but the potential for misinterpretation is being used in other ways. There are more members of WP:FOOTY than GiantSnowman by the way (not that he isn't a knowledgable editor, but there are several others with expertise and familiarity who I feel it would be unfair to exclude if you were seeking wider discussion). Number 57 10:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I also left a message for GiantSnowman on his talk page. I certainly don't want any wiggle room for NSEASONS being misconstrued as license to create season articles for the football teams of the Faroe Islands league. The idea behind NSEASONS was to tighten the standard for most American sports seasons, not loosen it for association football everywhere else. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- OK, football-specific wording seems to be the way forward. Cheers, Number 57 10:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
In the same way that we have separate distinctions of notability for athletes for each sport (e.g. NFOOTBALL, NCRICKET etc.), why not also break down NSEASONS by sport - so football can be fully-professional, baseball can be MLB or whatever etc.? This to be determined by each WikiProject. GiantSnowman 11:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed: WP:NSEASONS already includes specific standards for several sports. I think the definitive solution to the problem at hand is to include a specific standard for association football seasons. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Editing
@Dirtlawyer1: please compare this diff and see what the main and necessary grammatical change was that I made. Yours, Quis separabit? 12:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tim McKee you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TheQ Editor -- TheQ Editor (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Moving of a page
Hey Dirtlawyer, what do you think of this? It was previously at Northern Colorado Bears until User:Linnix moved it. I disagree with this move, mostly because there was no consensus, not to mention that we should probably keep all sports articles similar. Unlike the University of North Dakota, NC actually has an athletic nickname, so I don't see why a move would've been needed. Should I contact an administer and see if they can move it back to the original article? Thanks. Corkythehornetfan 23:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Corkythehornetfan and Cbl62: The retitling is absolutely not correct, Corky. I was in process of saving my response to your query when you deleted it. I see Cbl62 has already restored the proper title to the article. Please ask Cbl if he has time to leave an explanatory message for Linnix; if not, I will do so. Please let me know. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Update on College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS
Hi, any update on the GA review for College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS? Dolenath (talk) 06:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
MOSFLAG merry-go-round
Hey there Mr Lawyer! Have I missed something over the past few months regarding flags? I've run into a user at Diamond Games, who has taken it upon himself to remove all instances of the flagicon. Now I thought, and seem to remember you being active across the board (at least regarding tennis players) arguing that a flagicon may be used to show which country a tennis player represented, just not to show locations of tournaments. To be honest, I don't have the time to argue with people with such a guerilla-deletionist agenda, so could you point me towards the discussions which pointed out it was OK? I also wonder why this particular tournament was singled out, when there are tens of thousands of other instances, alone across the tennis project. Who knows!? Anyway, how's Wikidata going for you? Do you have any personal interest-projects or ideas what to do next? My to-do list is exceedingly long, and it's hard not to get bogged down with the masses of vandalism and patrol-work at RecentChanges... It's hard for me to balance my time between here and there I must admit! Jared Preston (talk) 12:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Jared Preston, Fyunck(click), and Wolbo: Jared, I have reverted RPOD's changes to the Diamond Games article, and left message for him on the article talk page and his user talk page. I have also pinged two of the prominent members of WikiProject Tennis, Fyunck and Wolbo, who are knowledgeable about the proper uses of flag icons in the context of international sports. You need to get them involved. Personally, I believe there are ways to use fewer flags in the tennis results tables, but the present use is almost certainly permitted by the wording of MOS:ICON and the examples provided therein. The proper place for the extended discussion with RPOD is the MOS:ICON talk page, where more knowledgeable editors may be drawn into the discussion. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- There will always be someone around who tries to mess things up. Things are 99% stable as far as I can tell, but this guy wants it his own way. We'll keep an eye on him. Just mention it to others if you see it again. I'm having the same trouble with a forced tennis template. The template may or may not be good but he changed it and lengthened it with no other input and won't put it back while we discuss it. It happens. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Fyunck(click): ROPD is a pretty solid article editor, and I agree with him more than half the time when it comes to the opinions he expresses in RfCs and other discussions. He can be rather single-minded at time. In this case, it appears that he is not aware of the particular applications of MOS:ICON in a sports context; the use in question here was unquestionably permitted before the recent changes to MOS:ICON. That said, personally, I think we are still over-using flags in sports articles. If you want to see ridiculous over-use, just look at any of the soccer/association football championship tournament articles: the same player or same team will be tagged with a flag icon multiple times in the same article, sometimes even in the same section of the same article. The result is that the article looks the floor of a confetti factory. If we're going to use flag icons without overwhelming the articles, we need to contemplate better ways of presenting tournament brackets and so on, so that flag icons do not appear next to the same player or team name multiple times in the same article. Often, what we're doing now is gross overkill, even if it is permitted by a literal reading of the guideline. The easy part was removing flags for tournament locations and host countries, but we still need to contemplate how to further reduce over-use. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- There will always be someone around who tries to mess things up. Things are 99% stable as far as I can tell, but this guy wants it his own way. We'll keep an eye on him. Just mention it to others if you see it again. I'm having the same trouble with a forced tennis template. The template may or may not be good but he changed it and lengthened it with no other input and won't put it back while we discuss it. It happens. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- There is, however, a fine line between decorative and informative use. Sometimes, at least. I have, although, come to agree with the fact that they are not needed for locations. In fact, I have removed them before when people have used them to represent a language. That really is a no-go! Thanks again for your help, Mr. Lawyer. Jared Preston (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Jared Preston: We should never be using flag icons purely for geographic locations; there is no element of "representation" present, and such uses are arguably purely decorative, as no additional information is imparted to the reader. From a layout and design standpoint, adding flags to tournament locations, such as the tournament results table, contributes to the over-use problem, and really overwhelms the reader with colorful bits of graphics. It also draws attention away from the sports nationality flags, which we want to emphasize in the first place. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- Exactly. Jared Preston (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- The use of flags (in tennis) as they are now really doesn't bother me as overkill. They are better than a constant 3 letter code imho. At least the flags have mouseovers. That said, if I was to create my own draw at Wikipedia I would include the flag in the first round for everyone, second round only for those who may have had byes in the first round, and probably the flag again for the champion. The rest aren't really needed over and over in a draw. Again I don't find the tennis draws overwhelming as they are now, they look fine. But in Fyunck-world that's the way I'd do it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Fyunck(click): Your thinking regarding the use of tournament brackets, with flag icons only used in the first round matches of the draw, is one of the solutions to repeated flag use which I have contemplated. Obviously, that would require a tremendous amount of editor work to retrofit all existing articles, but maybe we should contemplate that as the new standard for current tournament articles, and let the retrofit happen over time by editors who want to gnome those articles. Personally, I think another example of over-use of flags in tennis articles is the use of flag icons for every tournament opponent in the player's tournament history. In an article about Chrissy Everett, do we want to emphasize her U.S. sporting nationality, or overwhelm that with dozens of other bits of confetti that are only marginally related to the article's subject? I think these are some of the kinds of choices that the sports WikiProjects need to make for themselves. Bottom line: flags work best when there are fewer of them in a given article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- We might disagree on this one. If you are talking about Chris Evert career statistics I think those flags help the article and work fine in a table format. I would disagree with your premise. Flags work best when used as needed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- Fyunck, I don't expect you to agree with me all the time, or even when I first raise an issue. Think about it, and let this one ruminate for a while. The present use complies with MOS:ICON, but what information are we trying to impart here? Do we really need 20 separate flag icons for Martina Navratilova and another 6 flags for Evonne Goolagong in an article about Chrissy Everett? Isn't that redundant with the list of win-loss records vs. opponents in the same article? Are we really doing a service to our readers by including several dozen sporting nationality flags in an article about an individual athlete? I'm trying to plant a seed here, not start an argument. Remember: I'm on your side. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- We might disagree on this one. If you are talking about Chris Evert career statistics I think those flags help the article and work fine in a table format. I would disagree with your premise. Flags work best when used as needed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Fyunck(click): Your thinking regarding the use of tournament brackets, with flag icons only used in the first round matches of the draw, is one of the solutions to repeated flag use which I have contemplated. Obviously, that would require a tremendous amount of editor work to retrofit all existing articles, but maybe we should contemplate that as the new standard for current tournament articles, and let the retrofit happen over time by editors who want to gnome those articles. Personally, I think another example of over-use of flags in tennis articles is the use of flag icons for every tournament opponent in the player's tournament history. In an article about Chrissy Everett, do we want to emphasize her U.S. sporting nationality, or overwhelm that with dozens of other bits of confetti that are only marginally related to the article's subject? I think these are some of the kinds of choices that the sports WikiProjects need to make for themselves. Bottom line: flags work best when there are fewer of them in a given article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- The use of flags (in tennis) as they are now really doesn't bother me as overkill. They are better than a constant 3 letter code imho. At least the flags have mouseovers. That said, if I was to create my own draw at Wikipedia I would include the flag in the first round for everyone, second round only for those who may have had byes in the first round, and probably the flag again for the champion. The rest aren't really needed over and over in a draw. Again I don't find the tennis draws overwhelming as they are now, they look fine. But in Fyunck-world that's the way I'd do it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- Exactly. Jared Preston (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Jared Preston: We should never be using flag icons purely for geographic locations; there is no element of "representation" present, and such uses are arguably purely decorative, as no additional information is imparted to the reader. From a layout and design standpoint, adding flags to tournament locations, such as the tournament results table, contributes to the over-use problem, and really overwhelms the reader with colorful bits of graphics. It also draws attention away from the sports nationality flags, which we want to emphasize in the first place. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- There is, however, a fine line between decorative and informative use. Sometimes, at least. I have, although, come to agree with the fact that they are not needed for locations. In fact, I have removed them before when people have used them to represent a language. That really is a no-go! Thanks again for your help, Mr. Lawyer. Jared Preston (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
But back to the draws. Here is the 2014 men's Wimbledon draw without flags for every round. When compared to the current version I'm not sure it's an improvement, though others may disagree. In fact, when scrolling from from right to left through the brackets it's easier for a reader to follow the flags than it is the person's name. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Fyunck(click): Actually, I think it is a significant improvement. Unnecessarily doubling the number of flags in the table just makes it look like a dog's breakfast. Just as we don't need to link the player's name at every stage of the bracket, we don't need to include a flag icon for the player's nationality at each level, either. Repeating the flag icons over and over again is not imparting new information to the reader; in fact, it's gone from being decorative to redundant.
- From the standpoint of good layout and design, I would also suggest that the most important information should be presented first, and the player's name is obviously more important than his sporting nationality -- therefore, name, then flag icon. The way it's presented now, the flags get in the way of reading the names. I would also suggest that you should at least include the 3-letter country code next to the flag icons in order to comply with the spirit of MOS:ICON. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- The three letter codes at least half the time imparts zero information and makes things even more cluttered. And in draws there is a real spacing issue. This was discussed if I recall and disregarded. As far as the flag being before or after I see no real difference but many of the prominent sources put the flag before the player in lists and such. See ATP rankings and Australian Open bio. I totally disagree that it looks like a dogs breakfast. I like it. I may like it a bit more with only the first round with flags but it is also easier to scroll around with the flags. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- I can understand why some folks might be against the 3-letter country codes, because some of them are fairly obscure and may not really add anything. As for flag vs. name order, just because the ATP does it one way, does not mean theirs is the best way. In the ATP rankings table, placing the numbered rank first is unavoidable, but placing the flag second -- before the player's name -- is really rather odd, given the relative importance of the datapoints. It's the player being ranked No. 1, not his country. Semantically, the ATP table is poorly designed in that respect. BTW, I used to do this for a living in my 20s; and my student publications in high school and college won several Columbia gold medals for best design in the country. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- As I said, front or back is no big deal to me. I tend to go with what is natural to see in the real world. The thing is I'm not sure the difference is big enough to make changes. There are so many other major things that need doing that to gather editors to discuss moving the flag seems much ado about nothing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- I can understand why some folks might be against the 3-letter country codes, because some of them are fairly obscure and may not really add anything. As for flag vs. name order, just because the ATP does it one way, does not mean theirs is the best way. In the ATP rankings table, placing the numbered rank first is unavoidable, but placing the flag second -- before the player's name -- is really rather odd, given the relative importance of the datapoints. It's the player being ranked No. 1, not his country. Semantically, the ATP table is poorly designed in that respect. BTW, I used to do this for a living in my 20s; and my student publications in high school and college won several Columbia gold medals for best design in the country. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- The three letter codes at least half the time imparts zero information and makes things even more cluttered. And in draws there is a real spacing issue. This was discussed if I recall and disregarded. As far as the flag being before or after I see no real difference but many of the prominent sources put the flag before the player in lists and such. See ATP rankings and Australian Open bio. I totally disagree that it looks like a dogs breakfast. I like it. I may like it a bit more with only the first round with flags but it is also easier to scroll around with the flags. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The article Tim McKee you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Tim McKee for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TheQ Editor -- TheQ Editor (talk) 13:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
DragoLink08
I can't remember how deeply you were enmeshed in the earlier sock puppet reports, but FYI anyhow - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DragoLink08. JohnInDC (talk) 03:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- @JohnInDC: I was the prosecuting editor in several of the DragoLink SPI cases, and, if memory serves, so were Jrcla2 and Rikster2 at other times. I have noticed the recent edits by the new user in question, and I had been waiting for him to actually start doing something I considered to be disruptive. Most of the edits I have seen were actually bringing various pages into closer compliance with our college sports team color schemes. I have watch-listed the SPI discussion, and I will jump in if I can be of assistance. You also may want to ping Jweiss11, too, because he has a wider variety of CFB-related articles watch-listed than I do. Thanks for staying on top of this. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- The edit that triggered my review of his edits wasn't actually that bad but then I saw that he was beginning to accumulate concerns on his Talk page and figured, well, if editors who don't even know he's a sock are unhappy... Well, anyhow, thanks for the tip re @Jweiss11:, who may now consider himself pinged. JohnInDC (talk) 14:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Check out this color scheme. Hurts my eyes even to look at it. Is there a rule or guideline that cover such things? Cbl62 (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Cbl62: Yes, sir, that's pretty obnoxious. In addition to being a pretty egregious violation of good layout and design, as well as good taste, I'm pretty sure those color combinations violate one or more guidelines:
- That said, that's so damn ugly, I don't think you need to cite the guidelines. Make the changes to some more subtle colors and 15 to 20 percentage screens for the backgrounds, and most sensible editors will stand up and applaud. Let me know what you want to do; I will back your play, if your play is to introduce a more subtle color scheme along the lines of what we typically use for the lists of football and men's basketball coaches. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
CFB Standings
I know you are big on templates. I think somebody messed with the standings templates. See Template:2014 SEC football standings for an example. The title isn't center aligned anymore and I don't know if it is me but I think the team records are a little off as well.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- @UCO2009bluejay: This same problem was noticed on the medals templates this week, too. Apparently someone was tinkering with the underlying coding that impacts all templates. I'm not a template editor/coder, so I suggest we ping User:Alakzi, who is my go-to guy for fixing template problems, and have that discussion with him involved. If you can describe the issue, Alakzi almost always can fix it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- This is a bug affecting (nearly) all non-{{Infobox}} infoboxes. On Tuesday, I asked for the infobox stylesheet to be adjusted to enforce the left justification of row labels in Internet Explorer version 9 and below. The administrator who handled my request instead opted to left-justify all infobox cells. It's now been three days, and I've been doing nothing but fixing infoboxes. There's been a complaint on WP:VPT and several other places. Alakzi (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Alakzi: So, what's the best way to deal with this? Piecemeal, or wait for the global solution? Personally, I don't think the example cited by Bluejay is probably not the worst of all related problems. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- This is a bug affecting (nearly) all non-{{Infobox}} infoboxes. On Tuesday, I asked for the infobox stylesheet to be adjusted to enforce the left justification of row labels in Internet Explorer version 9 and below. The administrator who handled my request instead opted to left-justify all infobox cells. It's now been three days, and I've been doing nothing but fixing infoboxes. There's been a complaint on WP:VPT and several other places. Alakzi (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
replied to you on my talk page. Continue there if need be. Blueboar (talk) 00:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
FYI
I blocked the user you reported on my talk page. Go through the 'official' channels at WP:UAA et al. often enough and you might get your own block button ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, Opabinia, but the block button is the aspect of being an administrator I find least attractive. I don't spend a lot time hunting vandals and bad user names, but when I find them in the course of ordinary editing, I will usually take the time to let one of the more motivated admins know about it. Frankly, the "official channels" are too often ridiculously slow to act, and the backlog status of areas like SPI has become pretty awful. The last occasion I took the time to report an obvious sock, the report sat untouched for two weeks until the sock was blocked for another offense; that's discouraging. We really do need more level-headed admins in certain areas of the project, and hanging out at ANI is far from the most crucial. As for admin-type work, I'm more of an AfD/XfD kinda guy, and I've invested a fair amount of effort in mastering the nuances of notability and suitability in my subject areas of interest.
- BTW, your namesake is one strange-looking critter. As an arthropod, I have to wonder if it tasted like lobster. Were there any Cambrian butter-producing critters? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Ha. Catching up on wiki-business after lunch and now I'm hungry again. And very conflicted about that fact ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- There are plenty of crustaceans in the sea which are more than willing to eat their cousins. That's why lobsters evolved claws: it's eat or be eaten among arthropods. Besides, the male lobster with the biggest claw is more popular among the lady lobsters. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Is this a contrived reference to the TfD RfC? :-P Alakzi (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Uh --- no. It's a contrived reference to Opabinia's selection of a Cambrian-era arthropod as her user name. On the other hand, "eating our own" could be a reference to much of what happens on Wikipedia. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well, apparently, I'm a deletionist. Good to know. This will probably be snow-closed by tomorrow evening. Alakzi (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- The editor who made that comment has participated in two TfDs in the last year: both in December, both POTW's nominations where he put a top-of-the-page TfM notice on the nominated templates instead of the proper sidebar/top-of-the-infobox notice -- on 16,000+ transclusions of edit-locked templates. Suffice it to say, it looks like a lot of people were pissed off about the screwed-up notices. Nothing like engendering good feelings, your RfC commenter among them. That's about the time I started regularly commenting at TfD again, and one of a series of TfD dust-ups that attracted my attention in November and December. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well, apparently, I'm a deletionist. Good to know. This will probably be snow-closed by tomorrow evening. Alakzi (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Uh --- no. It's a contrived reference to Opabinia's selection of a Cambrian-era arthropod as her user name. On the other hand, "eating our own" could be a reference to much of what happens on Wikipedia. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Is this a contrived reference to the TfD RfC? :-P Alakzi (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- There are plenty of crustaceans in the sea which are more than willing to eat their cousins. That's why lobsters evolved claws: it's eat or be eaten among arthropods. Besides, the male lobster with the biggest claw is more popular among the lady lobsters. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Ha. Catching up on wiki-business after lunch and now I'm hungry again. And very conflicted about that fact ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, this RfC has finally reached its apex. You might find a more receptive crowd at a tea party. Alakzi (talk) 02:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sigh. Sorry. In retrospect, the title was a mistake, and five bullet points with multiple sentences each is way too much to expect people to read about a problem that exists because not enough people care about it. Everyone seems to have plenty of time for drama lately, though. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- Ah yes, the Kww-TRM kurfuffle yesterday and Eric's block today. Meanwhile, I can't get a single thing done that requires admin assistance. Alakzi (talk) 09:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- Though when I was preaching the "principle of least drama", Eric thought we should bash people over the head. Alakzi (talk) 10:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- Ah yes, the Kww-TRM kurfuffle yesterday and Eric's block today. Meanwhile, I can't get a single thing done that requires admin assistance. Alakzi (talk) 09:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
The article Tim McKee you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Tim McKee for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TheQ Editor -- TheQ Editor (talk) 13:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much...
...for your support at my RfA; it's greatly appreciated, and I shall do my utmost to live up to the trust which has been placed in me. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 08:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Ser Amantio di Nicolao: Congratulations, well earned, sir. Good luck, and please don't break the wiki! Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'll try not to. There's probably a "throwing my weight around" joke in here somewhere, but damned if I can figure out where. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 23:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Persondata
May I remove {{persondata}} even if not all of its data was transferred to Wikidata? I looked at a few articles I created and most of the data on Wikidata is incomplete. (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Persondata has been officially deprecated SLBedit (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- @SLBedit: Ideally, you would confirm that the persondata includes article title name per WP:COMMONNAME, full name, married/maiden name (if applicable), one or more brief descriptions (e.g., Scottish footballer), dates of birth and death, and places of birth and death -- before deleting the persondata template from the article. If any element of reliable persondata did not transfer to Wikidata, it would be helpful if you manually transfer it yourself. It's not hard; see, e.g., [2]. You can access Wikidata for a particular article by clicking on "Wikidata item" under the "Tools" menu on the lefthand side of the page. Please ping me if you have any "how to" questions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not logged in on Wikidata. Migrating data manually is very time consuming. Is there a tool to do this automatically? SLBedit (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well, if you enter Wikidata from link in Wikipedia, you automatically have an account under the same username there (look for a red link with your username at the top center-right of the page). I have never had to actually log in there; apparently, if you're logged in here, you're logged in there. And, yes, it is annoying and time-consuming to manually transfer perondata to Wikidata. I keep one window open in Wikipedia and another in Wikidata, so I can copy and paste. I've gotten fairly efficient with practice, but it takes me 2 to 4 minutes per Wikidata profile. I have approximately 3000 bios on my watchlists, I entered the persondata for most of those, so I'm checking and manually transferring the persondata for everything on my list. If there is an auto-editor (e.g., AWB, Twinkle, etc.) that can assist here, I don't know what it is. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not logged in on Wikidata. Migrating data manually is very time consuming. Is there a tool to do this automatically? SLBedit (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
@Rms125a@hotmail.com: Could you please give input about this? SLBedit (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)